Essence of ancient Roman philosophy. The philosophy of ancient Rome The main ideas of the philosophy of ancient Rome
After the subjugation of Greece to Rome in the II century. BC e. on ancient Roman soil, the teachings that appeared in Ancient Greece in the era of the collapse of the Athenian state - epicureanism, stoicism, skepticism. Over the course of five centuries, ancient Roman authors explained in detail and developed concepts that were often preserved only in fragments from the ancient Greek period, giving them the artistic completeness and practicality of the Roman soul.
The Romans, unlike the Greeks, were very active, and they were disgusted by the contemplative nature Greek philosophy. “After all, all the merit of valor lies in activity,” Cicero drops this phrase as a matter of course.
The practical orientation of the Roman soul led to the fact that in ancient Rome they were interested not in dialectics and metaphysics, but mainly in ethics. The closest Greek philosopher to the Roman Empire, Epicurus, gained fame in ancient Rome, and he found followers. His views are very close to the political situation. ancient rome period of the collapse of the republic.
Lucretius
The popularity of Epicurus was promoted by the poem “On the Nature of Things” by Lucretius Cara (c. 99 - c. 55 BC) (Lucretius is a name, Car is a nickname), a native of Rome, who lived in the era of civil war between supporters of Sulla and Maria and uprisings Spartacus. Lucretius was not a theoretician, but a poet; even more of an Epicurean than a poet, because he himself claimed that he undertook to present the views of Epicurus in poetic form to facilitate their perception, following the principle that the main thing is pleasure, as, say, a patient is given bitter medicine along with honey, so that it would not be unpleasant to drink .
Lucretius explained many of the views of Epicurus, whose works have survived only in fragments. He wrote about atoms, which must have a different nature than visible things, and not be destroyed, so that something new constantly arises from them. Atoms are invisible, like the wind and the smallest dust particles, but things, people and even gods are formed from them (as from the letters of a word).
Nothing can come from nothing by the will of the gods. Everything comes from something and turns into something due to natural causes. In fact, all changes occur in the world from the movement of atoms, which is random, mechanical in nature and imperceptible to people.
Lucretius paints a grandiose picture of the evolution of the world as a process that proceeds without the participation of any supernatural forces. Life, in his opinion, arose by spontaneous generation from inanimate nature. The properties of all things depend on the characteristics of the atoms of which they are composed, and they also determine our sensations, with the help of which a person cognizes the world around us. Soul and spirit are also material and mortal.
The social life of people is the result of their initial free contract among themselves. The gods do not interfere in the lives of people, as evidenced by the existence of evil and the fact that punishment can befall the innocent, and the guilty remain intact.
Can't you see
That only nature cries out for one thing, and that only demands,
So that the body does not know suffering, but the thought enjoys
Feeling pleasant away from the consciousness of care and fear?
We thus see what corporeal nature needs
Only a little: that suffering removes everything.
Those who in life took the true mind as their helm,
He always possesses the wealth of moderate life;
His spirit is serene, and he lives, being content with little.
In such very precise words, Lucretius conveys the essence of the teachings of Epicurus.
Epicureanism is more suitable for free people who can climb into an ivory tower. And the slave? How can he live unnoticed and without fear to enjoy life? Every person in the era of the empire was under the heel of a tyrant. Under these conditions, the teaching of Epicurus loses its vitality, no longer fits the social circumstances of the Roman Empire, when a person is forced to confront the authorities.
STOICS
The views of the Roman Stoics differed from the Greek in tonality - the strength of their feelings and the expressiveness of poetry - and this was due to a change in social conditions. Gradually, the dignity of people was undermined and at the same time their confidence. The psychological margin of safety was exhausted, and the motives of doom began to prevail. B. Russell wrote that in bad times philosophers invent consolations. “We cannot be happy, but we can be good; let's imagine that as long as we are kind, it doesn't matter if we are unhappy. This doctrine is heroic and useful in a bad world.”
Among the Roman Stoics, the leading features are not pride, dignity, self-confidence and inner steadfastness, but rather weak b awn, feeling of insignificance, confusion, brokenness. Nor do they have the optimism of the Greeks. The concepts of evil and death come to the fore. The Roman Stoics demonstrate the steadfastness of despair and patience, through which the motive of spiritual freedom breaks through.
A famous Roman propagandist of Stoicism was Cicero (106 - 43 BC). They explained the basic Stoic concepts. "But the first task of justice is not to harm anyone, unless you are called to do so against the law." To live in harmony with nature means “to be always in harmony with virtue, and to choose everything else that corresponds to nature only if it does not contradict virtue” (i.e. wealth, health, etc.). More, however, Cicero is known as an orator.
SENECA
A Spaniard by origin, Seneca was born in Rome. From 48 AD e. he is the tutor of the future emperor Nero, from whom he accepted death. The works of Seneca are as difficult to parse as a fictional novel. Retelling does not seem to reveal anything new, but if you start reading, you fall under the charm of style. This is an author for all times and peoples, and if there are several books that everyone should read in their lives, this list includes Seneca's Moral Letters to Lucilius. Reading them is useful and delivers inexplicable spiritual pleasure.
From an aesthetic and moral point of view, the works of Seneca are impeccable. Even in Plato, highly artistic parts of the text are interspersed with quite ordinary ones. In Seneca, everything is carefully finished and combined into one whole, although we are dealing with a cycle of letters, apparently, really written to the addressee at different times. The unity of the work gives the integrity of the author's worldview. The moral preaching of Seneca does not sin with edification, cheap slogans, but subtly leads and convinces. We see in the author a combination of pride, valor, nobility and mercy, which we do not find either in Christian missionaries, who are distinguished by a different set of virtues, or in the philosophers of modern times.
In the work of Seneca, the motive of suffering prevails, and confidence in the possibility of getting rid of them goes out, leaving hope only for oneself. “We are not able to change ... the order of things, but we are able to gain greatness of spirit, worthy of a good man, and steadfastly endure all the vicissitudes of the case without arguing with nature.” Outside of himself, man is powerless, but he can be master of himself. Look for support in your own soul, which is God in man, Seneca advises.
Seneca contrasts external pressure with individual moral self-improvement and the struggle, first of all, with one's own vices. “I didn’t judge anything but myself. And why do you come to me in the hope of benefit. Anyone who expects to find help here is mistaken. Not a doctor, but a patient lives here.”
To gain independence from the despotic forces in the power of which a person is, Seneca proposes to become indifferent to fate, not to follow, like cattle, the leaders of the herd and views that find many followers; but live as required by reason and duty, i.e. by nature. "To live happily and to live according to nature are one and the same." “What is freedom, you ask? Do not be a slave to circumstances, or to inevitability, or to chance; bring fortune down one step with yourself; and as soon as I realize that I can do more than she, she will be powerless over me.
Understanding slavery in the broadest sense and fighting against it, thereby reflecting the growing anti-slavery sentiment and bringing the death of the slave system closer, Seneca believes that every person is potentially free, in a soul that cannot be given into slavery.
Seneca's morality is distinguished by mercy, philanthropy, compassion, pity, reverent attitude towards other people, benevolence, gentleness. In an all-powerful empire, the life of a philosopher is not safe, and this was fully experienced by Seneca, who was accused by his former student Nero of plotting against him. Although no evidence was found, Seneca, without waiting for arrest, opened his veins, remaining faithful to his views. It is not so important whether Seneca participated in the conspiracy against Nero or not. The very fact that he took part in state affairs indicates that he was preparing his own death. He is guilty of only one.
Seneca is the pinnacle of the moral and philosophical thought of mankind. He managed to synthesize everything of value that was in ancient ethics, not excluding the teachings of the opponent of the Stoics, Epicurus. He could agree that absolute truth is impossible, but for him this question is not important, but the question “how to live?”. This question cannot be saved by paradoxes, it must be solved here and now.
Seneca united the fate of the three great ancient Greek philosophers. He was the educator of the future emperor, like Aristotle (although, unlike him, he believed that a virtuous person could be happy even under torture); wrote as artistically as Plato, and died, like Socrates, in the conviction that, according to the establishment of nature, "it is more unfortunate to bring evil than to suffer."
EPICTETUS
The first thing the student needed was to realize his own weakness and impotence, which Epictetus called the beginning of philosophy. The Stoics, following the Cynics, believed that philosophy is medicine for the soul, but in order for a person to want to take medicine, he must understand that he is sick. "If you want to be good, first be imbued with the conviction that you are bad."
The first stage of philosophical education is the rejection of false knowledge. Having begun to study philosophy, a person experiences a state of shock, when, under the influence of true knowledge, he seems to go crazy, abandoning his usual ideas. After that, new knowledge becomes the feeling and will of a person.
Three things are necessary, according to Epictetus, to become virtuous: theoretical knowledge, internal self-improvement, practical exercises (“moral gymnastics”). Daily self-examination, constant attention to yourself, your thoughts, feelings and actions are required; vigilant observation of oneself, as worst enemy. It is necessary to get rid of passions gradually, but consistently. You are used to being angry every day, try to be angry every other day, and so on.
The two basic principles of Epictetus are: "Withstand and refrain." Steadfastly withstand all the external difficulties that fall upon you, and whatever happens, take it easy. “Only one road leads to freedom: contempt for what does not depend on us”2. Refrain from any manifestation of your own passions, remembering that yours is only the mind and soul, but not the body. “Take my body, my property, my honor, my family - but no one can have my thoughts and willtake away, nothing can suppress them. "And you, although you are not yet Socrates, must, however, live like a man who wishes to become Socrates."
We also find in Epictetus the “golden rule of ethics”: “The position that you cannot tolerate, do not create for others. If you do not want to be a slave, do not tolerate slavery around you.
MARC AURELIUS
Shaky became not only the position of the individual, especially the slave, but also the empire. It was time for her decline. This is not the pessimism of a slave or a courtier, but the pessimism of an emperor and, therefore, an empire. Marcus Aurelius had all the power, all the "bread and circuses", but they did not please him. Strange as it may seem, it is precisely during the period of the maximum power of the empire that a person inside it feels most unprotected and insignificant, crushed and helpless. The stronger the state, the weaker the individual. And not only a slave or a courtier, but an unlimited ruler himself.
An important place in the philosophy of Marcus Aurelius is occupied by the requirement to always be the same in response to the influence of external circumstances, which means constant proportionality, internal consistency of the mental disposition and all life. “To be like a cliff against which a wave is constantly beating; he stands, and the heated wave subsides around him.
We meet similar thoughts in Seneca. “Trust me, it's a great thing to always play the same role. But no one but the sage does this; all others are many-sided. The lack of integrity and wholeness is the reason that people, entangled in the change of masks, are split. And integrity is needed, because the person himself is a part of the world whole, without which he cannot exist, like an arm or a leg separately from the rest of the body. The idea of the unity of everything in the universe is constantly repeated by Marcus Aurelius.
That was the only case in world history when a state was ruled by a philosopher and the visible social pinnacle of the triumph of philosophy was reached. It would seem that it was Marcus Aurelius who would try to create a state on those philosophical principles that were developed in philosophy, starting with Socrates and Plato. But Marcus Aurelius not only did not begin cardinal transformations (although as an emperor he had every opportunity for this - not like Plato), but did not even turn to people with philosophical sermons that had become fashionable at that time, but only kept a diary - for myself, not for publication. This is an extreme degree of disappointment in the possibility of improving the situation. One of Plato's desires for a philosopher to rule the state came true, but Marcus Aurelius understood how difficult, if not hopeless, it was to try to fix people and social relations. In the self-belittling of Socrates there was irony, in the self-belittling of Seneca and Marcus Aurelius there was genuine grief.
Teaching people how to live, the former slave Epictetus, the philosopher on the throne Marcus Aurelius, the statesman and writer Seneca, comparable in artistic skill only to Plato, and closer to us than Plato in the poignancy of his writings, are the most significant names of Roman stoicism.
All three were united by the conviction that there is a reasonable need for submission to the universal higher principle, and only the mind, and not the body, should be considered one's own. The difference is that, according to Seneca, outside world everything is subject to fate; according to Epictetus - the will of the gods; according to Marcus Aurelius - the world mind.
The similarity between the Roman Stoics and the Epicureans, as well as between the Greeks, consisted in the orientation towards life by nature, isolation and self-sufficiency, serenity and dispassion, in the idea of the materiality of the gods and the soul, the mortality of man and his return to the world whole. But the understanding of nature by the Epicureans as the material Universe remained, and by the Stoics - as the mind; justice as a social contract - by the Epicureans and as a duty to the whole world - by the Stoics; recognition of free will by the Epicureans and higher order and predestination by the Stoics; the idea of the linearity of the development of the world among the Epicureans and the cyclical development of the Stoics; orientation towards personal friendship among the Epicureans and participation in public affairs among the Stoics. For the Stoics, the source of happiness is reason, and the main concept is virtue; for the Epicureans, feeling and pleasure, respectively.
SEXTES EMPIRICUS
Fragments of works remained from ancient Greek skeptics. Sextus Empiricus (end of the 2nd - beginning of the 3rd century AD) gave a complete teaching with a detailed criticism of representatives of other directions. He did the same generalizing work that Lucretius did with Epicurus.
In the idea of the relativity of good and evil, Sextus finds his advantages. The rejection of the notion of the common good makes a person more resistant to public opinion, but in the absence of the main individual goal that subjugates all others, a person in the hustle and bustle of circumstances loses self-confidence and gets tired of fulfilling small goals that often contradict each other and deprive life of meaning. The skeptic himself, as a philosopher, must regard wisdom as a blessing.
Sextus gives an exhaustive summary of skeptical conclusions and teachings. We find in him logical paradoxes like "I am a liar", indicating that thinking, in principle, cannot be strictly logical and avoid contradictions. "I'm a liar," the man declares. If so, then his statement cannot be true, i.e. he is not a liar. If he does not lie, then his words are true, and, therefore, he is a liar.
We meet with Sextus paradoxes associated with qualitative changes in things, for example, the “grain and heap” paradox attributed to the philosopher of the Megarian school Eubulides from Miletus (4th century BC): “If one grain does not make a heap, and two do not make heaps, and three, etc., then there will never be a heap. Here we can say about the lack of understanding of what is obvious to modern science - the emergence of new properties in more complex things. Denying them, Sextus proves that if a part does not have any property (the letter does not denote a thing), then the whole (word) does not have this property either. Sextus can be corrected according to modern science, but the cornerstones of skepticism remain.
Diogenes Laertes considered skepticism to be a direction penetrating all ancient philosophy. The ancient Greeks paid great attention to logical difficulties, because for them rational arguments were of the greatest importance, and paradoxes were attracted by the possibility of resolving them, which sometimes turned out to be unsuccessful.
However, if everything is denied, then it is impossible to talk about anything. This forces one to make positive assertions. If I don't know if I know something, then maybe I do know something? Consistent skepticism opens the way to faith.
It is the merit of the skeptics to try to determine the limits of rational thinking in order to find out what can and cannot be expected from philosophy. Dissatisfied with the framework in which the mind functions, they turned to religion. Undermining the authority of reason, the skeptics thus prepared the offensive of Christianity, for which faith is higher than reason. Despite the efforts of Epicurus and the Stoics, it turned out that the fear of death could not be overcome by reasonable arguments. The spread of Christianity is caused by the whole logic of development ancient culture. People want happiness not only here, but also after death. Neither Epicurus nor the Stoics nor the Skeptics promised this. Faced with a dilemma: reason or faith, people rejected reason and preferred faith, in this case Christian. Turning away from rational wisdom, a younger and more self-confident Christianity defeated ancient philosophy. The latter reposed like a wise old man giving way to a new generation.
From the end of the 2nd century Christianity takes over the minds of many people. We can say that Christianity defeated the most powerful empire in the history of mankind, and the only emperor-philosopher Marcus Aurelius in history suffered a crushing spiritual defeat. Why did this happen? Weakening of creativity ancient philosophy, the change in the spiritual climate and social conditions of the then society led to the triumph of Christianity. Philosophy was first overthrown, and then used for the needs of religion, turning into the servant of theology for 1500 years.
ROMAN PHILOSOPHY
From the beginning of the III century BC. e. in the Mediterranean region, the influence of Rome is significantly increased, which from an urban republic becomes a strong power. In the II century. BC e. he already owns a large part ancient world. The cities of mainland Greece also fall under its economic and political influence. Thus, the penetration of Greek culture, an integral part of which was philosophy, begins in Rome. Roman culture and education developed under completely different conditions than those that had been several centuries earlier in Greece. Roman campaigns, directed in all directions of the then known world (on the one hand, in the area of mature civilizations of the ancient world, and on the other hand, on the territory of "barbarian" tribes), form a broad framework for the formation of Roman thinking. Successfully developed natural and Technical science, political and legal ones reach unprecedented proportions.
Roman culture is characterized by the desire to enrich itself with the best of what Rome faces, striving for world domination. Therefore, it is logical that Roman philosophy is also formed under the decisive influence of Greek, in particular Hellenistic, philosophical thinking. philosophical schools(mid-2nd century BC).
Approximately since that time, three philosophical trends have been developing in Rome, which were already formed in Hellenistic Greece - Stoicism, Epicureanism and Skepticism.
Stoicism. The greatest distribution both in the republican, and later in Imperial Rome received stoicism. Sometimes it is considered the only philosophical direction that acquired a new sound in the Roman period. Its beginnings can already be seen in the influence of Diogenes of Seleucia and Antipater of Tarsus (who arrived in Rome with the Athenian embassy mentioned). A notable role in the development of Stoicism in Rome was also played by representatives of the Middle Stoa Panetios from Rhodes and Posidonius, who worked in Rome for a relatively long period. Their merit lies in the fact that they contributed widespread stoicism in the middle and upper classes of Roman society. Among the students of Panetius were such outstanding personalities of Ancient Rome as Scipio the Younger and Cicero.
Panetius, in the main provisions of his teaching, largely adhered to the old Stoicism. So, he has the concept of logos, similar to the concept, for example, in Chrysippus, who adhered to similar ontological views. In the field of ethics, he somewhat brought the ideal of the Stoic sage closer to practical life.
Posidonius had a great influence on the further development of Roman Stoicism. In the field of ontology, he develops the main philosophical problems of the teachings of Aristotle, as well as issues bordering on the natural sciences and cosmology. He connects the original philosophical and ethical views of Greek Stoicism with elements of the teachings of Plato, and in some cases with Pythagorean mysticism. (This shows a certain eclecticism that was typical of Roman philosophy of that period.)
The most prominent representatives of Roman stoicism (new standing) were Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius.
Seneca (c. 4 BC - 65 AD) came from the class of "horsemen", received a comprehensive natural science, legal and philosophical education, a relatively long period successfully engaged in the practice of law. Later he becomes the tutor of the future emperor Nero, after whose accession to the throne he receives the highest social position and honors. In the second year of Nero's reign, he dedicates to him the treatise "On Mercy", in which he urges Nero, as a ruler, to maintain moderation and adhere to the republican spirit.
As prestige and wealth grows, Seneca comes into conflict with his surroundings. After a fire in 64 AD. e. hatred for Seneca in Rome is growing. He leaves the city and lives on his nearby estate. Accused of preparing a conspiracy, he was forced to commit suicide.
The legacy of Seneca is very extensive. His most outstanding works include Letters to Lucilius, Discourse on Providence, On the Fortitude of a Philosopher, On Anger, On happy life”, “On free time”, “On virtue”, etc. With the exception of “Questions of Nature” (“Quastiones naturales”), all of his works are devoted to ethical problems. If the old standing considered physics to be the soul, then the philosophy of the new standing considers it a completely subordinate area.
In his views on nature (as well as in the rest of his work), Seneca, however, in principle adheres to the teachings of the old stand. This is manifested, for example, in the materialistically oriented dualism of matter and form. Mind is considered to be the active principle that gives form to matter. This clearly recognizes the primacy of matter. He also understands the soul (pneuma) in the spirit of old Stoicism, as a very subtle matter, a mixture of the elements of fire and air.
In epistemology, Seneca, like other representatives of Stoicism, is a supporter of ancient sensationalism. He emphasizes that reason has its origin in feelings. In deciding the question of the activity of the soul, however, he accepts certain elements Platonic philosophy, which is manifested primarily in the recognition of the immortality of the soul and the characterization of corporality as the "fetters" of the soul.
Seneca proceeds from the fact that everything in the world and in the universe is subject to the power of strict necessity. This follows from his conception of God as an immanent, ruling force that dominates the mind (logos). Seneca characterizes it as "the highest good and the highest wisdom", which is realized in the harmony of the world and its expedient arrangement.
Unlike the old stoicism, Seneca (as well as all Roman stoicism) almost does not deal with logical problems. The center and focus of his system is ethics. The principle of harmony with nature stands out as the main one (to live happily means to live in accordance with nature) and the principle of man's subordination to fate. The question of how to live life is devoted to his treatises “On the brevity of life” and “On a happy life”. They are projected as personal experience Seneca, and the social attitudes of the then Rome. The loss of civil liberties and the decline of the republican virtues in the era of imperial power lead him to considerable doubts about the future. Life is divided into three periods: past, present and future. Of these, the one in which we live is short; the one in which we will live is doubtful, and only the one in which we have lived is certain. Only he is stable, fate does not affect him, but no one can return him either. Seneca rejects the desire for the accumulation of property, for secular honors and positions: “The higher one ascends, the closer he is to the fall. Very poor and very short is the life of that person who, with great effort, acquires what he must retain with even greater effort. However, he used his social position and became one of the richest and most influential people in Rome. When his enemies pointed out the fact that his own life differed very sharply from the ideals that he proclaims, he answered them in the treatise “On a Happy Life”: “... all philosophers do not talk about how they themselves live, but about how must live. I speak about virtue, but not about myself, and I fight against sins, and that means against my own: when I overcome them, I will live as I should.”
Seneca sees the meaning of life in achieving absolute peace of mind. One of the main prerequisites for this is to overcome the fear of death. He devotes a lot of space to this issue in his writings. In ethics, he continues the old line, emphasizing the concept of man as an individual striving for perfection in the virtues.
A life in which a person devotes all or the vast majority of his efforts to his own improvement, a life in which he avoids participation in public affairs and political activity, is, according to Seneca, the most worthy. “It is better to seek shelter in a quiet harbor than to be voluntarily thrown back and forth all your life. Think how many waves you have already been exposed to, how many storms have swept through your private life, how many of them you have unconsciously called upon yourself in public life! I do not mean that you drown your days in sleep and pleasure. This is not what I call a fulfilling life. Strive to find tasks more important than those that you have been engaged in until now, and believe that it is more important to know the score of your own life than the common good that you have cared about until now! If you live like this, fellowship with wise men, fine art, love and accomplishment of good awaits you;
knowing how to live well and one day die well.” His ethical views are imbued with individualism, which is a reaction to the turbulent political life in Rome.
Another prominent representative of Roman stoicism - Epictetus (50-138) was originally a slave. After he was released, he devoted himself entirely to philosophy. In his views there is much from the old stand, which influenced him, and from the work of Seneca. He left no work himself. His thoughts were recorded by his student Arrian from Nicomedia in the treatises "Epictetus' Reasoning" and "Epictetus' Guide". Epictetus defended the point of view according to which philosophy, in fact, is not only knowledge, but also application in practical life. He was not an original thinker, his merit mainly lies in the popularization of Stoic philosophy.
In his ontological ideas and in his views in the field of the theory of knowledge, he proceeded from Greek stoicism. The works of Chrysippus had an exceptional influence on him. The core of the philosophy of Epictetus is ethics, based on the Stoic understanding of virtue and life in accordance with the general nature of the world.
The study of nature (physics) is important and useful not because nature (the surrounding world) can be changed on its basis, but because, in accordance with nature, a person can streamline his life. A person should not desire what he cannot master: “If If you want your children, your wife and your friends to live permanently, then you are either crazy, or you want things that are not in your power to be in your power and that what is alien to be yours. And since it is not in the power of man to change the objective world, society, one should not even strive for this.
Epictetus criticizes and condemns the then public order. He emphasizes the idea of the equality of people, condemns slavery. In this way his views differ from the Stoic teachings. The central motif of his philosophy - resignation to the given reality - leads, however, to passivity. "Don't wish everything to happen the way you want, but wish everything to happen the way it happens, and you will be fine in life."
Epictetus considers reason to be the real essence of man. Thanks to him, man participates in the general order of the world. Therefore, one should not care about well-being, comforts, and bodily pleasures in general, but only about one’s soul.
Just as reason rules over a person, so the world mind - logos (God) rules in the world. He is the source and determining factor in the development of the world. Things, as controlled by God, should obey him. Freedom and independence, which he gave great importance. Epictetus limits only spiritual freedom, the freedom of humility with reality.
The ethics of Epictetus are essentially rationalistic. And although it is expressively marked by subjectivism, it still protects (unlike the irrationalist currents that were being formed at that time) the power of the human mind.
In essence, the whole philosophy of Epictetus is an expression of the passive protest of the lower social classes against the existing social order. This protest, however, finds no real outlet. Therefore, it results in a call to come to terms with the existing state of affairs.
The emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121–180) also belongs to the Roman Stoics, during whose reign the crisis phenomena become even more intense. The upper social classes refuse to change anything in order to preserve the existing social order. In Stoic ethics they see a certain means of the moral rebirth of society. The emperor, in his reflections "To himself", proclaims that "the only thing that is in the power of man is his thoughts." "Look into your gut! There, inside, there is a source of goodness, which is able to beat without drying up, if you constantly dig into it. He understands the world as eternally current and changeable. The main goal of human aspirations should be the achievement of virtue, that is, the obedience to "reasonable laws of nature in accordance with human nature." Marcus Aurelius recommends: “Calm thought with everything that comes from outside, and justice with everything that is realized at your own discretion, that is, your desire and action, let them be in actions that are generally useful, for this is the essence in accordance with your nature.”
Marcus Aurelius is the last representative of ancient Stoicism, and in fact this is where Stoicism ends. In his work, certain traces of mysticism appear, which is closely associated with the decline of Roman society. largely influenced the formation of early Christianity.
Epicureanism The only materialistic (for its time, distinctly materialistic) philosophy in ancient Rome was Epicureanism, which spread considerably in the last years of the Roman Republic and early imperial rule. Its most prominent representative was Titus Lucretius Carus (c. 95-55 BC), who wrote the philosophical poem "On Nature", which is also valuable artwork contemporary literature.
Lucretius fully identifies his views with the teachings of Democritus and Epicurus; the latter he considered the best Greek philosopher. In his work, he skillfully explains, proves and propagates the views of the early representatives of the atomistic doctrine, consistently defends the basic principles of atomism both from earlier and contemporary opponents, giving at the same time the most complete and logically ordered interpretation of atomistic philosophy. At the same time, in many cases he develops and deepens the thoughts of Democritus and Epicurus. Lucretius considers atoms and emptiness to be the only thing that exists.
Matter, first of all, is the primary bodies of things,
secondly, everything that is the totality of the named elements.
No force, however, can destroy atoms,
they always win with their impenetrability.
The first is deeply different, double character
have those two things, as said above,
matter and space, everything happens in it;
they are necessary in themselves and pure.
Where does the emptiness, the so-called space, extend,
there is no matter; and where the matter is stretched,
there is no emptiness and space in no way.
The first bodies are full without emptiness.
Secondly, in the things that have arisen, there is a void,
next to it is solid matter.
In this form, Lucretius expounds the doctrine of Democritus and Epicurus about atoms and emptiness, emphasizing at the same time the uncreability of matter as such.
If the first bodies are solid
and without cavities, as I have already said,
they are certainly eternal.
With the indestructibility and increability of matter, i.e., with its infinity in time, the infinity of matter in space is also connected.
The universe itself cannot limit itself;
truth is the law of nature; he wishes that the limits of matter
formed a void, and matter - the boundaries of the void,
the merit of this alternation is the universe without end.
Atoms, according to Lucretius, are inherent in motion. In solving the problem of movement, he stands on the principles of Epicurus. He tries in a certain way to justify deviations from the rectilinear motion of atoms.
Here's what you should know about movement:
if atoms fall vertically in space due to
its own weight, here in an indefinite place
and indefinitely they deviate from the path
just enough so that the direction is slightly different.
If this deviation did not exist, everything would fall into
depths of emptiness, down like raindrops,
elements could not collide and connect,
and nature would never have created anything.
From this it follows that the Epicurean parenclitic movement for Lucretius is the source of particles. Together with the size and shape of atoms, it is the cause of the diversity and variety of things in the world.
He considers the soul to be material, a special combination of air and heat. It flows through the whole body and is formed by the finest and smallest atoms.
What matter is the spirit and what does it consist of,
my words will shortly enumerate it for you.
First of all, I say that the spirit is extremely subtle;
the bodies that form it are extremely small.
It helps to understand and you will understand that:
nothing happens in the world so fast
as something that thought itself represents and forms.
From this it can be seen that the spirit has the highest speed,
than all that is available to the eye;
but what is also mobile, it is true that it consists of bodies
perfectly round and tiny.
In a similar way, he defends atomistic views in the field of the theory of knowledge, which he also developed in many directions.
In Lucretius's understanding of the atomistic theory, one can already meet the outlines of evolutionism. He held the view that everything organic arose from the inorganic and that complex organic species developed from the simplest.
Lucretius tries to explain in a natural way the emergence of society. He says that originally people lived in a "semi-savage state", not knowing fire and dwelling. Only the development of material culture leads to the fact that the human herd is gradually turning into society. Naturally, he could not come to a materialistic understanding of the causes of the emergence and development of human society. His desire for a "natural" explanation was limited by both social and epistemological parameters. However, despite this, his views on society were, in particular, compared with the then idealistic approach, significant progress. Like Epicurus, he believed that society, social organization (law, laws) arise as a product of mutual agreement of people (contract theory):
Neighbors then began to unite in friendship,
No longer wanting to repair lawlessness and enmity,
and the children and the female sex were taken under protection,
showing gestures and awkward sounds,
that all should have sympathy for the weak.
Although consent could not be universally accepted,
the best and most part of the contract was sacredly fulfilled.
The materialism of Lucretius also has its atheistic consequences. Lucretius not only excludes the gods from a world in which everything has natural causes, but also opposes any belief in gods. He criticizes the idea of life after death and all other religious myths. Shows that belief in gods arises in a completely natural way, as a product of fear and ignorance of natural causes. In particular, he points to the epistemological origins of the emergence of religious ideas (disclosure of the social roots of religion was, of course, impossible in his time).
In the field of ethics, Lucretius consistently defends the Epicurean principles of a calm and happy life. Knowledge is the means to happiness. In order for a person to live happily, he must be free from fear, in particular from fear of the gods. These views he defended both from Stoic and skeptical criticism, and from their vulgarization in the understanding of some supporters of Epicureanism from the highest circles of society.
The impact and spread of the consistently materialistic and logically integral philosophical system of Lucretius, undoubtedly, was also facilitated by the artistic form of presentation. The poem "On Nature" belongs not only to the heights of Roman philosophical thinking, but also to the highly artistic works of its period.
Epicureanism remained in Roman society for a comparatively long time. Even in the era of Aurelian, the Epicurean school was among the most influential philosophical trends. However, when in 313 AD. e. Christianity becomes the official state religion, a stubborn and ruthless struggle begins against Epicureanism, and in particular against the ideas of Lucretius Cara, which eventually led to the gradual decline of this philosophy.
Roman epicureanism, in particular the work of Lucretius Cara, marked the pinnacle of materialistic tendencies in Roman philosophy. He became an intermediate link between the materialism of the ancient Greek Stoics and the materialistic currents of the philosophy of modern times.
Skepticism. Another significant philosophical trend in ancient Rome was skepticism. His chief representative Aenesidemus from Knossos (ca. 1st century BC) in his views is close to the philosophy of Pyrrho. The influence that Greek skepticism had on the formation of Aenesidemus' thoughts is evidenced by the fact that he devoted his main work to the interpretation of the teachings of Pyrrho ("Eight Books of Pyrrho's Reasonings").
Aenesidemus saw in skepticism a way to overcome the dogmatism of all existing philosophical trends. He paid much attention to the analysis of contradictions in the teachings of other philosophers. The conclusion of his skeptical views is that it is impossible to make any judgments about reality based on direct sensations. To substantiate this conclusion, he uses the formulations of the so-called tropes, which have already been mentioned.
The following five tropes, which were added by the successor of Aenesidemus Agrippa, further increased doubts about the correctness of the ideas of other philosophical trends.
The most prominent representative of the so-called junior skepticism was Sextus Empiricus. His teaching also comes from Greek skepticism. This is evidenced by the title of one of his works - "Fundamentals of Pyrrhonism". In other works - "Against Dogmatists", "Against Mathematicians" - he sets out a methodology of skeptical doubt, based on a critical assessment of the basic concepts of the then knowledge. Critical appraisal is directed not only against philosophical concepts, but also against the concepts of mathematics, rhetoric, astronomy, grammar, etc. The question of the existence of gods did not escape his skeptical approach, which led him to atheism.
In his works, he seeks to prove that skepticism is an original philosophy that does not allow confusion with other philosophical trends. Sextus Empiricus shows that skepticism differs from all other philosophical currents, each of which recognizes certain essences and excludes others, in that it simultaneously questions and admits all essences.
Roman skepticism was a specific expression of the progressive crisis of Roman society. Searches and studies of contradictions between the statements of previous philosophical systems lead skeptics to a broad study of the history of philosophy. And although it is precisely in this direction that skepticism creates a lot of things, on the whole it is already a philosophy that has lost that spiritual power that elevated ancient thinking to its heights. In essence, skepticism contains more outright rejection than methodological criticism.
Eclecticism. Significantly more widespread and important than in Hellenistic Greece is eclecticism in Rome. Its supporters include a number of prominent personalities of Roman political and cultural life, both in the last years of the Roman Republic and in the first period of the empire. The most famous among them was the outstanding politician and orator Mark Thulius Cicero (106-45 BC), the creator of Latin philosophical terminology.
Representatives of Roman eclecticism possessed a colossal amount of knowledge. In a number of cases they were genuine encyclopedists of their era. Their combination of different philosophical schools was not accidental and unfounded, a certain conceptual approach was strengthened precisely by a deep knowledge of individual views. The gradual convergence of theory with the field of ethics expressed the general situation in philosophy.
Eclecticism, developing on the basis of academic philosophy, reaches the boundaries of encyclopedism, covering the knowledge of both nature and society. Cicero belonged to, perhaps, the most significant direction of Roman eclecticism, which developed on the basis of Stoic philosophy.
"Stoic" eclecticism in the presentation of Cicero focuses on social issues, and in particular on ethics. His motive was to combine those parts of various philosophical systems that bring useful knowledge.
The social views of Cicero reflect his position as a representative of the upper strata of Roman society during the Republic. He sees the best social structure in a combination of three basic state forms: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. He considers the goal of the state to provide citizens with security and free use of property. His theoretical views were largely influenced by his actual political activities.
In ethics, he largely adopts the views of the Stoics, pays considerable attention to the problems of virtue set forth by the Stoics. He considers man to be a rational being, which has something divine in itself. Virtue refers to the overcoming of all life's adversities by willpower. Philosophy renders invaluable services to man in this matter. Each of the philosophical directions comes to the achievement of virtue in its own way. Therefore, Cicero recommends "combining" everything that is the contribution of individual philosophical schools, all their achievements into one whole. By this, in fact, he defends his eclecticism.
Neoplatonism. The progressive crisis of Roman society in the last years of the republic and in the first years of the empire is naturally reflected in philosophy. Distrust of the rational development of the world, to a greater or lesser extent manifested in various philosophical directions, together with the growing influence of Christianity, more and more strengthened the multiplying signs of mysticism. The irrational currents of this era tried in various ways to adapt to the changing role of philosophy. Neo-Pythagorean philosophy, of which Apollonius of Tkana was a typical representative, tried to strengthen itself by returning to the mysticism of numbers, bordering on charlatanism; the philosophy of Philo of Alexandria (30s BC-AD 50) sought to combine Greek philosophy with the Jewish religion. In both concepts, mysticism appears in a concentrated form.
More interesting was Neoplatonism, which develops in the III-V centuries AD. e.; during the last century of the Roman Empire. It is the last integral philosophical direction that arose in the period of antiquity. Neoplatonism is formed in the same social setting as Christianity. Like other irrationalist philosophical trends of late antiquity, Neoplatonism to a certain extent is a manifestation of the rejection of the rationalism of previous philosophical thinking. It is a specific reflection of social hopelessness and progressive decay social relations upon which the Roman Empire was based. Its founder was Ammonius Saccas (175-242), and the most prominent representative of Plotinus (205-270).
Plotinus believed that the basis of everything that exists is a supersensible, supernatural, overreasonable divine principle. All forms of life depend on it. Plotinus declares this principle to be absolute being and says of it that it is unknowable. “This being is and remains God, does not exist outside of it, but is precisely its very identity.” This only true being is comprehensible only by penetrating into the very center of pure contemplation to pure thinking, which becomes possible only with the "rejection" of thought-ecstasy (extasis). Everything else that exists in the world is derived from this only true being. Nature, according to Plotinus, is created in such a way that the divine principle (light) penetrates matter (darkness). Plotinus even creates a certain gradation of existence from the external (real, true) to the lowest, subordinate (inauthentic). At the top of this gradation stands the divine principle, then the divine soul, and below all, nature.
Simplifying somewhat, we can say that the divine principle of Plotinus is an absolutization and some deformation of the world of Plato's ideas. Plotinus devotes much attention to the soul. It is for him a certain transition from the divine to the material. The soul is something alien to the material, bodily and external in relation to them. Such an understanding of the soul distinguishes the views of Plotinus from the views not only of the Epicureans, but also of the Greek and Roman Stoics. According to Plotinus, the soul is not organically connected with the body. It is part of the common soul. The corporeal is the tether of the soul, worthy only of overcoming. “Plotinus, as it were, pushes aside the bodily, sensual and is not interested in explaining its existence, but only wants to cleanse it from it, so that the universal soul and our soul do not suffer damage.” The emphasis on the "spiritual" (good) leads him to the complete suppression of all bodily and material (evil). This results in the preaching of asceticism. When Plotinus speaks of the material and sensible world, he characterizes it as an inauthentic being, as a non-existent, "having in itself a certain image of the existent." By its nature, an inauthentic being has no form, properties, or any signs whatsoever. With this decision, the main philosophical problems in Plotinus his ethics are also marked. The principle of good is connected with the only truly existing - with the divine mind, or soul. On the contrary, the opposite of good - evil is associated and identified with inauthentic being, that is, with the sensible world. From these positions, Plotinus also proceeds to the problems of the theory of knowledge. For him, the only true knowledge is the knowledge of true being, i.e., the divine principle. The latter, of course, cannot be comprehended by sensory cognition, nor is it cognizable by rational means. The only way to approach the divine principle Plotinus considers (as already mentioned) ecstasy, which is achieved only by spiritual effort - mental concentration and suppression of everything bodily.
The philosophy of Plotinus specifically expresses the hopelessness and insolubility of contradictions, which become all-encompassing. This is the most expressive harbinger of the end of ancient culture.
Porphyry (c. 232-304) became a direct student of Plotinus and a successor of his teachings. He showed great attention to the study of the works of Plotinus, published and commented on them, compiled a biography of Plotinus. Porfiry was also engaged in the study of the problems of logic, as evidenced by his "Introduction to the categories of Aristotle", which marked the beginning of a dispute about the real existence of the general.
The mystical teaching of Plotinus is continued by two other Neoplatonic schools. One of them is the Syrian school, the founder and most prominent representative of which was Iamblichus (end of the 3rd - beginning of the 4th century AD). From the surviving part of his large creative heritage, it can be judged that, in addition to the traditional range of problems of Neoplatonic philosophy, he was also occupied with other problems, such as mathematics, astronomy, music theory, etc.
In philosophy, he develops the thoughts of Plotinus concerning the divine principle, mind and soul. Among these Plotinian essences, he also distinguishes others, transitional ones.
Noteworthy is his attempt, in the spirit of Plotinus's philosophy, to substantiate ancient polytheism. Simultaneously with the divine principle as the only truly existing, he recognizes a number of other deities (12 heavenly gods, whose number he then increases to 36 and further to 360; then 72 earthly gods and 42 gods of nature). This is essentially a mystical-speculative attempt to save antique image world in the face of the coming Christianity.
Another school of Neoplatonism - Athenian - is represented by Proclus (412-485). His work in a certain sense is the completion and systematization of Neoplatonic philosophy. He fully accepts the philosophy of Plotinus, but in addition publishes and interprets Plato's dialogues, in the comments to which he expresses original observations and conclusions.
It should be noted that Proclus gives the clearest explanation and exposition of the principle of the dialectical triad, in which he distinguishes three main points of development:
2. Distinguishing what has already been created from what is creative.
3. The return of the created to the creator.
The conceptual dialectic of ancient Neoplatonism is marked by mysticism, which reaches its apex in this concept.
Both Neoplatonic schools deepen and systematically develop the basic ideas of Plotinus' mysticism. This philosophy, with its irrationalism, aversion to everything bodily, emphasis on asceticism and the doctrine of ecstasy, had a significant impact not only on early Christian philosophy, but also on medieval theological thinking.
We traced the origin and development of ancient philosophy. In it, for the first time, almost all the main philosophical problems, the basic ideas about the subject of philosophy are also formed and, although not explicitly, the problem is posed, which F. Engels formulated as the main question of philosophy. In ancient philosophical systems, philosophical materialism and idealism were already expressed, which largely influenced subsequent philosophical concepts. V. I. Lenin stated that the history of philosophy has always been an arena of struggle between two main trends - materialism and idealism. The directness and, in a certain sense, the straightforwardness of the philosophical thinking of the ancient Greeks and Romans make it possible to realize and more easily understand the essence of the most important problems that accompany the development of philosophy from its inception to the present day. In the philosophical thinking of antiquity, in a much clearer form than it happens later, ideological clashes and struggle are projected.
The initial unity of philosophy and expanding special scientific knowledge, their systematic selection explain very clearly the relationship between philosophy and special (private) sciences.
Philosophy permeates the entire spiritual life of ancient society; it was an integral factor in ancient culture. The richness of ancient philosophical thinking, the formulation of problems and their solution were the source from which she drew philosophical thought subsequent millennia.
This text is an introductory piece.11. Philosophy of al-Farabi. Philosophy of Y. Balasaguni. His work: "Blessed Knowledge" Abunasyr Mohammed ibn Mohammed Farabi (870-950) is one of the greatest thinkers of the early Middle Ages. He is a multifaceted scientist-encyclopedist and one of the founders of the Eastern
27. Kazakh philosophy: history and modernity (Abay, Valikhanov, Altynsarin), the origins of traits, traditions and innovations. Professional philosophy in Kazakhstan. (Rakhmatullin -
8. German classical philosophy and its main problems. Philosophy of Kant: the concept of "thing in itself" and transcendental knowledge. The Antinomies of Pure Reason German classical philosophy is regarded as an independent stage in the development of philosophy, because
15. Analytical philosophy of the twentieth century. Philosophical program neopositivism and its crisis. "Postpositivism" and the philosophy of science Analytical philosophy (Moore, Russell, Wittgenstein) was formed in the 20th century and saw the task of philosophy not in the synthesis of
§ 1. Social philosophy and philosophy of history Social philosophy of the late XX century. could claim an aristocratic origin: its ancestor was the classical philosophy of history. However, the connection between them is broken. They are separated by a whole era, during which there were
II. ROMAN INFANTRY The Latin word legio was originally used to designate a body of people selected for military service, and thus was a synonym for the army. Then, when the size of the Roman territory and the strength of the enemies of the Republic demanded larger
1. Philosophy between religion and science. The struggle of philosophy and religion. Philosophy and Society Truly tragic is the position of the philosopher. Almost no one likes him. Throughout the history of culture, hostility to philosophy is revealed, and, moreover, from the most diverse sides. Philosophy
2. Philosophy personal and impersonal, subjective and objective. Anthropologism in philosophy. Philosophy and Life Kierkegaard especially insists on the personal, subjective character of philosophy, on the vital presence of the philosopher in all philosophizing. He contrasts this
Chapter XXIX. THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO CULTURE The Roman Empire influenced the history of culture in various, more or less independent ways. First: the direct influence of Rome on Hellenistic thought; it was not very important or deep. Second:
7. ATHENS AND SPARTANS IN GREECE IN THE PARADIGM OF HYPERBOREAAN KNOWLEDGE. THE ROMAN EMPIRE OR ORBIS TERRARUM, THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE FOUNDATIONS AND STRATEGIC KNOWLEDGE OF HYPERBOREA IN THE WORLD Returning to the study of historical facts, we must recall that we were analyzing cognitive
10. LUNAR SEMITIC CHRISTIANITY IN THE HISTORY AND OPPOSITION OF HYPERBOREA. THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE STRATEGIES OF THE EMPERORS OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE OF THE GERMAN NATION This period of history, the beginning of the Middle Ages, in academic history is also called the Dark Age or
PHILOSOPHY OF THE NEW TIME AND ENLIGHTENMENT, GERMAN CLASSICAL
Remark 1
Since the $3rd century, a situation has been developing in the Mediterranean in which Rome, becoming a strong power, sets the direction of ancient philosophy, replacing the ancient Greek.
The cities of continental Greece fall under the influence of Rome.
In Roman philosophy, Platonism comes to the fore, which dissolves into Epicureanism, skepticism and Stoicism.
Thanks to the expansionary policy of the Roman state, an extensive framework of Roman thinking is being formed. Particularly successful are political and legal concepts and teachings that have ancient Greek roots in their beginning.
A common feature of ancient Roman philosophy is to highlight the ethics that are associated with a right and happy way of life.
Each school of this period develops its own idea of perfection and its own image of the sage. This image of the sage remains the same. The philosopher begins to be associated with the "strange" figure. Genuine philosophizing in everyday life acquires a specific character.
History of Stoicism
Ready-made works on a similar topic
- Course work Roman philosophy 450 rub.
- Essay Roman philosophy 270 rub.
- Test Roman philosophy 230 rub.
There are three stages:
- Ancient standing ($III-II$ centuries BC). Founder Zenon of Kitia.
- Medium standing ($II-I$ centuries BC) Representatives: Panetius of Rhodes ($180-110$), Posidonius ($135-51$). It was they who brought Stoicism to Rome.
- Late standing or Roman stoicism. This is purely ethical. In $I-II$ centuries. AD it existed simultaneously with the Judeo-Christian tradition, which influenced the formation of Christian doctrine.
Stoicism
The most prominent figures of Stoicism were Seneca Lucius Annaeus, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius . From Seneca, writings in Latin remained. Epictetus, who was a Greek slave, did not leave behind any written sources. Marcus Aurelius - Roman emperor who left writings on Greek.
Stoicism can be called the "religion" of the Roman aristocracy. How to achieve happiness, and how does it relate to virtue? These questions confronted representatives of Stoicism.
Happiness is life in harmony with nature. Happiness is an individual phenomenon.
Human nature is perfect, therefore it contributes to the nature of the whole. It is possible to improve only the nature of a particular person, while simultaneously improving nature as a whole. The perception of truth is always connected with the transformation of oneself. It is impossible to see the truth without transforming your being.
The Stoics shared Aristotle's ideas about man as a polis and logos being. Logos is the unchanging foundation of everything. It also determines the perfection of the world and man. Man must live according to the logos. Man is a cosmopolitan. He must live according to the logos of nature. Cosmopolitanism is a concept originating in Stoicism. Polis is a copy of the universal state.
Judgments about the macrocosm and microcosm originate from the Stoics. The microcosm repeats the macrocosm.
Quintus Ennius argued that a Roman is one who values freedom, nobility, and piety above all else.
In Roman culture, human destiny is conceived as fatalism. A person actualizes it when he reaches his goal, when he becomes himself. This is piety and the highest manifestation of freedom. A man must serve his duty and fulfill his fatum without succumbing to passions. Any love lies outside the concepts of honor and duty. The European Renaissance draws ideas of humanism from Antiquity. The Roman concept of humanism is associated with a rethinking of the role of man, his cultivation.
The Romans for the first time discover the world as history.
The fear of the most important thing is the fear of death. It cannot be considered without comprehending nature. Accordingly, enjoyment is impossible without comprehending nature. The Stoics allowed suicide, because philosophy is dying. In striving for the eternal, we strive for death.
Epicureanism
Founder - Epicurus.
The school of Epicurus is the only example of atomism in Roman philosophy. One of the representatives of Epicureanism was Titus Lucretius Car. He correlates his teachings with those of Democritus and Epicurus.
This philosophical direction existed for quite a long time in Roman culture. This was a very influential direction until 313, before the advent of Christianity. Further, it was cruelly supplanted by representatives of Christianity.
Skepticism
Another no less important trend in ancient Roman philosophy. Representative - Aenesidemus of Knossos . His teaching was greatly influenced by the ancient Greek skepticism of Pyrrho. The main motive of Aenesidemus' skepticism was opposition to the dogmatism of early philosophical concepts.
He paid attention to the inconsistency of the theories of other philosophers. His skeptical views came to the conclusion that it is impossible to make any judgments about reality that are based on sensations. It is a doubt about the correctness of the most influential theories of all ancient philosophy. In the period of younger skepticism, the figure of Sextus Empiricus is singled out, who followed the same path of doubting both Greek philosophy and mathematics, rhetoric, and grammar.
Remark 2
Major attempts at skepticism– to prove that this direction is the original way of philosophy, not mixed with other philosophical tendencies.
Eclecticism acquires extensive significance in ancient Roman philosophy. This trend includes many significant personalities of political and Roman culture, such as Cicero. Representatives of this direction possessed a huge amount of knowledge. These are real encyclopedists of their era. Eclecticism was based on a collection, the union of different philosophical schools, which were united by a conceptual approach. Eclecticism was formed on the basis of academic philosophy, which embraced knowledge from the teachings about nature to the teachings about society.
In the late crisis of the Roman state, criticism appears rational cognition world, which led to mysticism, with increased Christianization. The concept of Roman Neoplatonism begins to intensify. This is the last integral current in the final stage of the existence of the Roman Empire. This is a reflection on the decaying social relations.
Philosophy of ancient Rome
Ancient Rome did not create new philosophical systems. After the subjugation of Greece to Rome, the teachings that appeared in Ancient Greece in the era of the collapse of the Athenian state, such as Epicureanism, Stoicism, and skepticism, are transferred to ancient Roman soil. The prestige of the philosopher reaches its highest point. “The powerful of the world kept a domestic philosopher with their person, who was at the same time their closest friend, mentor, guardian of their souls ... In great sorrows they invited the philosopher to comfort him” (Renan E. Marcus Aurelius ... S. 29-30). The philosopher fulfilled the role that confessors later played in Christianity. “Thus, a real historical miracle was realized, which can be called the dominion of philosophers” (Ibid., p. 32). The practical orientation of the Roman soul led to the fact that in ancient Rome they were interested not in dialectics and metaphysics, but mainly in ethics. The Romans took two main themes from Greek philosophy: how to avoid the fear of death (this was what the Epicureans strove for) and how to meet it with dignity (the Stoics). In ancient Greece, opposed, in ancient Rome, the Stoics and Epicureans complemented each other (Seneca most readily quoted Epicurus).
The popularity of Epicurus was promoted by the poem "On the Nature of Things" by Lucretius Cara, a native of Rome (c. 99 - c. 55 BC). Lucretius was not a theoretician, but a poet, more an Epicurean than a poet, because he himself explained that he undertook to present the views of Epicurus in poetic form to facilitate their perception, following the principle that the main thing is pleasure, as, say, a patient is given bitter medicine along with honey, so that it is not unpleasant to drink it.
The problem of "God and evil" is one of the most difficult in ethics. Christianity answers it by stating that God has given people free will; Indian philosophy - the concept of karma. The Epicureans give their answer, believing that the gods do not interfere in the lives of people, because otherwise, according to Epicurus, one would have to admit that the gods that allow evil are either not omnipotent or not omnipotent.
And an interesting thing: Epicurus himself, according to Lucretius, turns out to be higher than the gods, because the gods do not interfere, and Epicurus saved humanity from fears with his teachings. Once again we are convinced: the lower the gods are placed, the higher the person turns out to be. “I don’t know anything about the gods,” says Buddha, and ... he becomes deified. The gods do not interfere, says Epicurus, and ... is revered as a god. A recent example is the deification of the rulers of an atheistic state.
The poem of Lucretius ends with a description of mass death from an epidemic. So the optimistic teaching of Epicurus unexpectedly turns into a pessimistic conclusion of the Roman poet regarding the possibility of its realization in life. In the future, with the formation of the empire, there was no room for optimistic teachings at all, and we see only stoics and skeptics.
Epicureanism is more suitable for free people who can climb into the "ivory tower". And the slave? How can he live unnoticed and without fear to enjoy life? Every person in the era of the empire was under the heel of a tyrant. Under these conditions, the teaching of Epicurus loses its vitality, no longer fits the social circumstances of the Roman Empire, when a person is forced to confront the authorities.
None of the numerous followers of Epicurus changed anything in his teaching. Either it is so integral that neither add nor subtract, or creative people did not go to the Epicureans. On the contrary, the metaphysics of the Stoics made a strong tilt towards Platonic idealism, while ethics (and for the Stoics, especially the Roman ones, it was the main one) changed little.
The views of the Roman Stoics differed from the Greek in tone - the strength of their feelings and the expressiveness of their position - and this was due to a change in social conditions. Gradually, the dignity of people was undermined and at the same time their confidence.
The psychological margin of safety was exhausted, and the motives of doom began to prevail. B. Russell wrote that in bad times philosophers invent consolations. “We cannot be happy, but we can be good; let us imagine that as long as we are kind, it does not matter that we are unhappy. This doctrine is heroic and useful in a bad world." (Russell b. Story Western philosophy. M., 1959. S. 286).
Among the Roman Stoics, the leading features are not pride, dignity, self-confidence and inner steadfastness, but rather weakness, a feeling of insignificance, confusion, brokenness. They do not have the optimism of the Greeks. The concepts of evil and death come to the fore. The Roman Stoics demonstrate the steadfastness of despair and patience, through which the motive of spiritual freedom breaks through.
A famous Roman propagandist of Stoicism was Cicero. They explained the basic Stoic concepts. “But the first task of justice is not to harm anyone, unless you are called to do so by illegality” (Cicero. About old age. About friendship. About responsibilities. M., 1974. S. 63). To live in harmony with nature means “to be always in harmony with virtue, and to choose everything else that corresponds to nature only if it does not contradict virtue” (i.e., wealth, health, etc.). More, however, Cicero became famous as an orator.
Cicero stood at the deathbed of the Republic. As a senator, he speaks like a statesman to the subjects who have elected him. The next famous stoic came when the republic perished. Seneca does not dream of its restoration, he resigned himself to this and his sermon, not edifying, like Cicero's, but friendly, does not address the inhabitants of the state, but to an individual, a friend. The Spaniard Seneca (c. 5 BC - 65 AD) was born in Rome. From 48 AD e. he is the tutor of the future emperor Nero, from whom he accepted death. This is an author for all times and peoples, and if there are several books that everyone should read in their lives, this list includes Moral Letters to Lucilius.
From an aesthetic and moral point of view, the works of Seneca are impeccable. Even in Plato, highly artistic pieces of text are interspersed with quite ordinary ones. In Seneca, everything is carefully finished and combined into one whole, although we are dealing with a series of letters, apparently, indeed, written to the addressee at different times. The unity of the work gives the integrity of the author's worldview. The moral preaching of Seneca does not sin with edification, cheap slogans, but subtly leads and convinces. We see in the author a combination of pride, valor, nobility and mercy, which we do not find either among Christian missionaries or philosophers of modern times.
In the work of Seneca, the motive of suffering prevails, and confidence in the possibility of getting rid of them goes out, leaving hope only for oneself. “We are not able to change ... the order of things, but we are able to gain greatness of spirit, worthy of a good man, and stoically endure all the vicissitudes of the case without arguing with nature” (Seneca L.A. Moral letters to Lucilius. M., 1977. S. 270). Outside of himself, man is powerless, but he can be master of himself. Look for support in your own soul, which is God in man, Seneca advises.
Seneca contrasts external pressure with individual moral self-improvement and the struggle, first of all, with one's own vices. “I didn’t judge anything but myself. And why do you come to me in the hope of benefit. Anyone who expects to find help here is mistaken. Not a doctor, but a patient lives here” (Ibid., p. 124). Unlike the Cynics of the heyday of philosophy, Seneca considers himself sick.
In order to gain independence from the despotic forces in the power of which a person is, Seneca proposes to become indifferent to fate, not to follow like cattle the leaders of the herd and views that find many followers, but to live as required by reason and duty, i.e. by nature. “To live happily and live according to nature is one and the same” (Anthology of World Philosophy. T. I. C. 514).
According to Seneca, death is needed not because suffering exceeds pleasure, as for Hegesius, but as a way of liberation from a life that does not correspond to human dignity. The motive for suicide in Seneca becomes so strong because in the era of the empire it was the only way to become free, and freedom first began to be valued when it disappeared from real life.
The chanting of death by the Roman Stoics is not a thirst for death, but an acknowledgment of the defeat of man. “To the one who fell into the hands of the ruler, who strikes his friends with arrows, to the one whom the master forces to tear out the insides of his own children, I will say: why are you crying, madman, what are you waiting for? For an enemy to destroy your family, for some foreign ruler to attack you? Wherever you turn your eyes, everywhere you will find the way out of your troubles! Look at this steep cliff - it leads to freedom, look at this sea, this stream, this well - freedom lurks at the bottom of them; look at this tree - low, withered, miserable - freedom hangs from it. Your neck, your throat, your heart - they will help you avoid slavery. But these paths are too difficult, they require great strength, mental and bodily; you ask what path to freedom is open; it is in any blood vein of your body” (History of Roman Literature, vol. 2, p. 81).
Death for Seneca is the criterion of a lived life. “All our previous words and deeds are nothing ... death will show what I have achieved, and I will believe it” (Seneca L.A. Moral letters ... S. 50). “Death is not evil. You ask what she is? “The only thing in which the entire human race is equal” (Ibid., p. 320). But in life, all people are equal in one thing - both free and slaves. All people are slaves to fortune. And each is in bondage to himself. “Show me who is not a slave. One is in slavery to lust, the other is in stinginess, the third is in ambition, and all is in fear ... There is no slavery more shameful than voluntary” (Ibid., p. 79). Understanding slavery in the broadest sense and fighting against it, thereby reflecting the growing anti-slavery sentiment, Seneca believes that every person is potentially free, in the soul.
Seneca's morality is distinguished by mercy, philanthropy, compassion, pity, reverent attitude towards other people, benevolence, gentleness. In an all-powerful empire, the life of a philosopher is not safe, and this was fully experienced by Seneca, who was accused by a former student Nero of plotting against himself. Although no evidence was found, Seneca, without waiting for arrest, opened his veins, remaining faithful to his views. It is not so important whether Seneca participated in the conspiracy, the fact that he took part in state affairs at such a time suggests that he was preparing his own death.
Seneca is the pinnacle of moral and philosophical thought. He managed to synthesize what was valuable in ancient ethics, not excluding the opponent of the Stoics, Epicurus. Seneca mocked sophisms and antinomies. He could agree that objective truth is impossible, but for him this question is not important, but the question of how to live? You cannot escape from it by paradoxes, it must be solved here and now.
Seneca united the fates of three great ancient Greek philosophers. He was the tutor of the future emperor, like Aristotle; wrote as artistically as Plato; and died, like Socrates, in the conviction that, according to the establishment of nature, "the one who brings evil is more unfortunate than the one who suffers."
Epictetus (c. 50-140) was the first of the famous philosophers who was a slave, but for the Stoics, who recognize all people as equal, this is not surprising. The owner, who mocked him, broke his leg, and then released the cripple. Together with other philosophers, he was subsequently expelled from Rome and opened his own school in Nicopolis (Epirus). His students were aristocrats, the poor, slaves. In his school of moral perfection, Epictetus taught only ethics, which he called the soul of philosophy.
The first thing the student needed was to realize his own weakness and impotence, which Epictetus called the principles of philosophy. The Stoics, following the Cynics, believed that philosophy is medicine for the soul, but for a person to want to take medicine, he must understand that he is sick. “If you want to be good, first be imbued with the conviction that you are bad” (Quoted in: Makovelsky A. Moral of Epictetus. Kazan, 1912, p. 6).
The first stage of philosophical education is the rejection of false knowledge. Having begun to study philosophy, a person experiences a state of shock, when, under the influence of true knowledge, he seems to go crazy, abandoning his usual ideas. After that, new knowledge becomes the feeling and will of a person.
Three things are necessary, according to Epictetus, to become virtuous: theoretical knowledge, internal self-improvement and practical exercises (“moral gymnastics”). It requires daily self-examination, constant attention to yourself, your thoughts, feelings and actions; vigilantly watching oneself as one's worst enemy. For liberation from passions, it is necessary to gradually reduce the food that they eat. If you are used to being angry every day, try to be angry every other day, etc.
The two main principles of Epictetus are: "withstand and abstain." Steadfastly withstand all the external difficulties that fall upon you, and whatever happens, take it easy. Refrain from any manifestation of your own passions, remembering that yours is only the mind and soul as something unified and rational, and not the body.
On earth all are captives and equally children of God. Epictetus appealed to God so passionately that he was called the forerunner of Christianity. We also find in Epictetus the golden rule of ethics. “The situation that you do not tolerate, do not create for others. If you do not want to be a slave, do not tolerate slavery around you.
Unusually for a philosopher, but completely opposite to that of Epictetus, the social position of Marcus Aurelius (121-180) is emperor. Nevertheless, his pessimism and the courage of despair are just as expressive. Shaky became not only the position of the individual, especially the slave, but also the empire. It was time for her decline. Marcus Aurelius had great power, but it did not please him. Strange as it may seem, it is precisely during the period of the maximum power of the empire that a person inside it feels most unprotected and insignificant, crushed and helpless. The stronger the state, the weaker the individual. And not only a slave or a courtier, but the almighty ruler himself.
Like all Stoics, Marcus Aurelius is looking for meaning. “What do I need to live in a world where there is no deity, where there is no providence” (Marcus Aurelius. Reflections. II, 11). The attempt to get rid of addictions undertaken by the Epicureans makes life meaningless. It is the duty of man to carry out a reasonable trade. “I am doing my duty. Nothing else diverts my attention."
The fulfillment of duty is facilitated by virtues, or rather one virtue as a unity, in various situations manifested in the form of prudence - the knowledge of what is good, what is evil, what should be done and what should not; sanity - the knowledge of what to choose, what to avoid; justice - knowledge about retribution to each according to his merits; courage, knowledge about the terrible and fearless; righteousness - justice towards the gods.
Marcus Aurelius also speaks about the desirability of such character traits as simplicity, integrity, integrity, seriousness, modesty, piety, benevolence, love, firmness in the performance of a proper deed. “So show yourself in what is entirely dependent on you: genuineness, strictness of character, endurance, severity towards yourself, unpretentiousness, benevolence, nobility, self-restraint, not speaking, majesty” (Ibid. IV, 5). “Perfection of character is to spend every day as if it were the last” (Ibid. VII, 69).
Marcus Aurelius came very close to the gospel "love your enemies", although he was an opponent of Christianity. He gives three excuses for why you should not be angry at those who offended you: first, your own goodwill is tested on this; secondly, people cannot be corrected, and therefore there is no point in denouncing them; Thirdly, " The best way revenge on the unkind consists in not becoming like them” (Ibid. VI, 6).
The universal mind is everywhere, like air, and it must be thanked for everything, even for misfortunes. Fate prescribes something to a person, as a doctor prescribes a medicine. Here is not philosophy, as in the Cynics, but fate is a doctor. The medicine is bitter. So the evil in the world is a bitter medicine that nature heals. This is close to the Christian idea that a disease is given as a punishment for sins, and a person cannot and should not figure out what he is punished for. Nature would not give sickness if it did not benefit the whole.
The obstacles themselves, like evil, help us. “And the very obstacle to the cause advances in the matter and the difficulty of the path leads along the path” (Ibid. V, 20). Pain and pleasure have nothing to do with ethics, since they do not make a person better or worse, and therefore are neither good nor evil. Marcus Aurelius owns the well-known expression "life is a struggle", although he was not inclined to admire this.
The main thing in life is to be worthy of God, genius, virtue, and keep your own color, like an emerald. “Curl up into yourself” (Ibid. VII, 28). Live in the present day, but without becoming attached to it, and do not be offended by anyone.
An important place in the philosophy of Marcus Aurelius is occupied by the requirement to always be the same in response to the actions of external circumstances, which means constant proportionality, internal consistency of the mental disposition and all life. “To be like a cliff against which a wave is constantly beating; he stands, and the heated wave subsides around him” (Ibid. V, 49).
Similar thoughts were found in Seneca. “Trust me, it’s a great thing to always play the same role. But no one but the sage does this; all other manifolds" (Seneca A. L. Moral letters ... S. 310). The lack of integrity and wholeness is the reason that people, entangled in the change of masks, turn out to be split. And integrity is needed because the person himself is a part of the world whole, without which he cannot exist separately from the rest of the body, like an arm or a leg. The idea of the unity of everything in the universe is constantly repeated by Marcus Aurelius.
That was the only case in world history when a state was ruled by a philosopher and the visible social pinnacle of the triumph of philosophy was reached. It would seem that it was Marcus Aurelius who would try to arrange a state on the principles that had been developed by philosophy since Socrates and Plato. But he not only did not start cardinal transformations (although as an emperor he had every opportunity - not like Plato), but did not even turn to people with philosophical sermons that had become fashionable at that time, but kept only a diary - for himself. This is an extreme degree of disappointment in the hope of improving the situation. Plato's wish for a philosopher to rule the state came true, but Marcus Aurelius understood how difficult it was to correct people and social relations. In the self-belittling of Socrates there was irony, in the self-belittling of Seneca and Marcus Aurelius there was genuine grief.
Teaching people how to live the former slave Epictetus, the philosopher on the throne Marcus Aurelius, statesman and the writer Seneca are comparable in artistic talent with Plato, and in the poignancy of their writings are closer to us than Plato - these are the most significant names of Roman stoicism. All three were united by the conviction that there is a reasonable need for submission to the universal higher principle, and only the mind, and not the body, should be considered one's own. The difference is that, according to Seneca, in the external world everything is subject to fate; according to Epictetus - the will of the gods; according to Marcus Aurelius - the world mind.
The similarity between the Roman Stoics and the Epicureans, as well as between the Greeks, was in the orientation towards life by nature, isolation and autarchy, serenity and apathy, in the idea of the materiality of the gods and the soul, the mortality of man and his return to the world whole. But the understanding of nature by the Epicureans as the material universe, and by the Stoics as mind remained; justice as a social contract - by the Epicureans, and as a duty to the whole world - by the Stoics; recognition of free will by the Epicureans and higher order and predestination by the Stoics; the idea of the linearity of the development of the world among the Epicureans and the cyclical development of the Stoics; orientation towards personal friendship among the Epicureans and participation in public affairs among the Stoics. For the Stoics, the source of happiness is reason, and the main concept is virtue; for the Epicureans, respectively, feelings and pleasures. The Stoics began to move away from the main line of antiquity, and the motives of mercy and humility brought them closer to Christian ethics, like the desire to suppress all desires - to Buddhism. The later Stoics, however, lacked self-confidence, were gnawed by skepticism, and here they gave way to religion.
Skeptics opposed the Stoics and Epicureans in Rome, as in Greece, and their importance increased as the creative potential of philosophy weakened. Skepticism is the inevitable companion of rational wisdom, as atheism is the companion of religious faith, and it only waits for the moment of its weakening, as atheism for the moment of weakening of faith. Denying the notion of the common good, Sextus Empiricus (end of the 2nd - beginning of the 3rd century AD) questions all the achievements of philosophy, starting with Socrates. With his reasoning about the impossibility of rationally explaining the change, Sextus completes what was started by Zeno's aporias. The difference between Sextus and the Eleatics is that they put forward aporias to prove the discrepancy between rational truths and sensory data. Sextus uses aporia to discredit both the testimony of feelings and reasonable arguments. Zeno argued that there is no movement, and Sextus, on the basis of the same aporia, concludes that nothing exists. Socratic skepticism, which makes sense of life, was replaced by the meaningless skepticism of Sextus Empiricus, and with this philosophy signed its own verdict.
However, if everything is denied, then it is impossible to talk about anything. It still makes me speak positively. If I don't know if I know something, then maybe I do know something? Consistent skepticism opens the way to faith. It is the merit of the skeptics to try to define the limits of rational thought in order to know what can and cannot be expected from philosophy. Dissatisfied with the framework in which the mind functions, they turned to religion. Undermining the conclusions of reason, the skeptics more and more incline people to faith and thus prepared the victory of Christianity, for which faith is higher than reason. They were helped by the Epicureans and the Stoics. It turned out that the fear of death cannot be defeated by reasonable arguments. Christianity did not arise by chance; its spread was prepared by the logic of the development of ancient culture. People want not only happiness here, but also after death. Neither Epicurus nor the Stoics nor the Skeptics promised this. Faced with a dilemma: reason or faith, people preferred faith, in this case Christian. Turning away from rational wisdom, a younger and more self-confident Christianity defeated the decrepit ancient philosophy. The latter reposed like a wise old man giving way to a new generation.
From the end of the 2nd century Christianity takes over the minds of the masses. It can be said that Christianity, in the fight against philosophy, defeated the most powerful empire in the history of mankind, and the only emperor-philosopher in history suffered a crushing spiritual defeat. Why did this happen? The weakening of the creative potential of ancient philosophy, the change in the spiritual climate and social conditions of the then society led to the triumph of Christianity. Philosophy was first overthrown, and then used for the needs of religion, turning into a servant of theology for one and a half thousand years.
In Roman civilization, philosophy loses its theoretical power, becoming predominantly practical wisdom, which deprives it of its main advantage - a reasonable search for truth. Trying to be primarily useful, philosophy exhausts itself.
This text is an introductory piece.FOREWORD
In the II-I century. BC. the dominant position in Europe and throughout the Mediterranean is gradually occupied by the state of the Romans, which turned by the end of the 1st century. BC. from republic to empire. The Roman Empire is already in its infancy new era ruled over vast territories, spreading its political influence from the western borders of Europe to Egypt and Asia Minor.
This geopolitical position of the Roman Empire also affected the originality of the Roman culture of that time. In this sense, Roman culture was not distinguished by any particular independence, but was the result of a fusion of a wide variety of cultural traditions - ancient, oriental, Christian and even barbarian. Such a fusion was often mechanical, and the interexistence of different cultural trends eventually led to the emergence of such a cultural phenomenon, when different traditions were not a single alloy, but a kind of mosaic.
And the philosophy of the times of the Roman Empire is not a single, independent doctrine. More characteristic is the revival and development in the new conditions of the previous philosophical teachings antiquity. In Rome, there were quite a few philosophical schools and trends: Stoicism, Epicureanism, skepticism, Neoplatonism, Neopythagoreanism, Aristotelianism and other ancient Greek philosophical teachings.
PHILOSOPHY OF THE JUNIOR STOIA
The philosophy of the Stoics found the greatest number of admirers in Rome. Most likely, this is due to the fact that the position of an individual in the Roman Empire was somewhat similar to the position of an individual in the Hellenistic monarchies - all the inhabitants of both Rome itself and its provinces were subjects of the empire. Accordingly, the Roman philosophers were also interested in the same questions as the thinkers of the Hellenistic era: special attention was paid to the problems of the individual human person; questions of ethics occupied the minds of most thinkers; the gradual penetration into the minds of people of the idea of a single God, replacing the polytheism characteristic of classical antiquity.
And, apparently, it was Stoicism that met the spiritual needs of the Romans to a greater extent, it was not without reason that this doctrine attracted and united people from various social strata in its ranks: Seneca, the court philosopher, Epictetus, a slave who became free at an already mature age, and, finally, Marcus Aurelius - one of the emperors of Rome. The names of these three thinkers are associated with the last, third period in the development of Stoicism, sometimes called Neostoicism, the Younger Stoya.
SENECA
Lucius Annei Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD) was born in the Roman province of Southern Spain in the city of Cordoba. Once in Rome, Seneca made a brilliant political career, made himself a significant fortune. Seneca was the tutor of the future emperor Nero, who, having taken the throne, at first listened to the advice of the philosopher. However, the constant participation of Seneca in political intrigues, as well as the personal qualities of the violent emperor, determined the break in relations between them. First, Seneca was removed into exile, and then, sentenced to death by Nero, committed suicide.
The desire of the Stoics to follow the dispassionate law of nature, Seneca brings to the formulation of the idea of a single God, who is this law. "There can be no nature without God and no God without nature," he says. God, in the understanding of Seneca, is identified with fate, providence, with the world as a whole: “Would you like to call it fate? And this is not a mistake ... He is everything that you see; he is all merged with all parts, supporting himself with his power.
God defines life, with all its joys and sufferings, successes and hardships. As a true Stoic, Seneca sees the main goal of life in overcoming suffering. Philosophy can help a person in this, the task of which is to shape the human character and make him able to withstand all the blows of fate. The highest type of person is a sage-philosopher who knows how to tame troubles, who stands above all passions. However, if a sage has outlived many vices in himself, then still far from all, since there are no absolutely perfect people.
Affirming the universal imperfection of people, for only God is perfect, Seneca uses the concept of sin and guilt, new to Stoicism. In his opinion, a person is sinful from the very beginning, he cannot be otherwise. If someone is sinless, says Seneca, then he is not a man, for even a wise man, remaining a man, is a sinner.
However, a person, realizing his imperfection, should still strive for a virtuous life. And here, developing the teachings of early Stoicism, Seneca discovers the concept of conscience as a spiritual force and moral foundation of man. Conscience is the ability to comprehend what is good and evil.
Seneca himself, however, did not always live in accordance with his philosophical principles: preaching poverty, he amassed a large fortune by hook or by crook; calling to be above all passions, he threw himself into the waves of political struggle with all his passion. The philosopher was aware of this discrepancy between word and deed, and, justifying himself, said: “They tell me that my life does not agree with my teaching ... All philosophers do not talk about how they themselves live, but how one should live. I am talking about virtues, and not about myself, and I am fighting vices, including my own: when I can, I will live as I should." However, sometimes Seneca's self-justifications were rather cynical. So, in his "Letters to Lucilius" he claims that "the shortest path to wealth is through contempt for wealth."
The teachings of Seneca turned out to be quite close in spirit to Christian theology, which was formed a little later. One of the early Christian philosophers, Tertullian, argued that sometimes Seneca was almost a Christian. Jerome even added Seneca to the list of Christian writers. And in the Middle Ages, his works were repeatedly quoted at church councils.
EPICTETUS
It is not known how and when Epictetus gained freedom, but in 92–94, already free, he, along with other philosophers, was expelled from Rome by decree of the emperor Domitian. After that, he settled in the city of Nikopolis in the Balkans and opened his own philosophical school.
Despite the fact that Epictetus had many rich students and admirers, he, in accordance with his principles, led a beggarly life. All his possessions consisted of a straw mat, a wooden bench, a mat, and an earthen lamp. Interestingly, after the death of the philosopher, this lamp was sold at auction as a relic for three thousand drachmas (more than 13 kg of silver).
Epictetus did not leave behind any works, following in this sense the precepts of Socrates. The speeches of Epictetus were recorded by his student Flavius Arrian, who compiled several books from them, of which only four books have come down to us.
Compared with Seneca, Epictetus introduces an even greater religious component into the teachings of the Stoics. God, in his opinion, is the supreme mind and the common good. God is Providence, which controls not only the general state of things, but also each person individually. People are obliged to obey God's will, for only then will they be able to multiply the divine greatness.
The existing world order, established by God, people cannot change, because it does not depend on their will and desires. But then you can change your attitude to this world order. According to Epictetus, in this sense, all things in the world are divided into two types: 1) those that are subject to us (opinions, aspirations, in general, all proper human actions); 2) those that are beyond our control, do not depend on our actions (property, wealth, relatives, body).
From this point of view, the possession of wealth, power, property is just a new form of slavery, because a person, lusting for things that are beyond his control, becomes their slave. Therefore, the sage, humbly and humbly accepting the limitations of his abilities, concentrates his efforts only on what is in his power - on the development of his own mind, on the education of his own will, on limiting his own passions and desires. And only in this case is he able to achieve true freedom, accepting life as it is, subordinating all his forces to the fulfillment of the highest divine will.
The teachings of Epictetus have always impressed Christianity, and it is not for nothing that one of the Fathers of the Church, Jerome, in connection with Epictetus, said that Stoic philosophy in many cases is close to Christian theology, similar to its dogmas.
MARC AURELIUS
Marcus Aurelius (121-180) was emperor of Rome from 161. He was an active and energetic ruler, under whom several wars were fought. At the end of his reign, a plague broke out in Rome, from which the emperor himself died.
After the death of Marcus Aurelius, his notes were found, which made up a whole philosophical essay, under the conditional title "Alone with myself" or "Memoirs". They are a series of aphorisms, maxims, observations made by Marcus Aurelius for himself without the intention of publication.
The notes of Marcus Aurelius literally fascinate the reader with the idea of frailty, the fluidity of everything mundane, the monotony, meaninglessness and even insignificance of human life: “Time is a river ... a swift stream. in sight first"; "The time of human life is a moment"; "Everyone's life is insignificant, that corner of the earth where he lives is insignificant."
Even the posthumous glory that people strive for in order to perpetuate themselves in the memory of their descendants, according to Marcus Aurelius, does not make any sense: “Everything is short-lived and soon begins to resemble a myth, and then indulges in complete oblivion ... What is eternal glory? - sheer fuss."
But with such a pronounced pessimism, Marcus Aurelius still finds a spiritual support that determines the actual meaning of human life - this is faith in a certain One-Whole, from where everything flows and where everything flows, and thereby saves everything separate from absolute vanity and meaninglessness. This One-Whole, as it were, controls the whole world, gives indisputable significance and certainty to nature in general, predetermines all moments of natural life.
With the One-Whole in a supernatural way, the gods are also connected, whom you must thank, always have in your thoughts, appeal to them and live with them.
The general world integrity and divine providence dictate to people a set of undoubted moral values that everyone must follow - this is "justice, truth, prudence, courage", as well as "generally useful activity". Therefore, ideally, a person is a being "courageous, mature, devoted to the interests of the state", meekly fulfilling his moral duty.
The concept of moral duty is also important in the philosophy of Marcus Aurelius, because the gods, in addition to duties, also gave people the freedom of moral choice: "They arranged it so that it depends entirely on the person himself whether or not to fall into true evil."
In fact, the opportunity to make a free moral choice between good and evil is the main concern of man, which gives a certain meaning to his existence on Earth. A person can make his choice only with the help of reason, which Marcus Aurelius calls the genius of man, his deity. Reason is the "hegemonicon", the guiding principle in man. It should be noted here that Marcus Aurelius for the first time in the Stoic tradition speaks of the complete independence of the human mind, that the mind is one of the components of a person in general. Before him, the Stoics, in the spirit of Platonic philosophy, argued that a person consists of only two parts - soul and body.
As a result, the Roman thinker comes to the conclusion that life must be accepted as it is and be completely satisfied with it: “So, spend this moment of time in harmony with nature, and then part with life as easily as a ripe plum falls: glorifying nature that gave birth to it, and with gratitude to the tree that produced it.
The philosophy of Marcus Aurelius, the last great Stoic, is evidence of the crisis and decline of the ancient spirit proper. The ancient world was crumbling before our eyes. And shortly after the death of Marcus Aurelius begins new era- the era of the formation and flourishing of Christian culture.
PHILOSOPHY OF SKEPTICISM
SEXTES EMPIRICUS
Biographical information about Sextus Empiricus (II-III centuries AD) is practically absent. For example, it is known that the teacher of Sextus Empiricus was a certain Herodotus. However, who Herodotus himself was is unknown. It is not known where and when Sextus Empiricus was born, where he lived, whether he was a Greek or a Roman. Even the name of the thinker does not explain anything to us. “Sextus” (“sixth”) is a Latin word, but in those days many Greeks also had Roman names. “Empiricists” in the Roman Empire were called doctors, hence Sextus was a doctor. But in relation to the thinker himself, the word “empiricist” has long ceased to mean simply “doctor”, and has long become his nickname, which has become part of his name.
Peru Sextus Empiricus owns two cycles of works written in Greek: "Pyrrho's Provisions" and "Against the Scientists". However, since the book "Against the Scientists" consists of several chapters, logically divided into two parts, some researchers consider Sextus Empiricus the author of three books: "Pyrrho's propositions", "Against the dogmatists" and "Against the representatives of certain sciences". In addition to the fact that Sextus Empiricus expounds his own views in these books, his writings have another remarkable quality - they are the most important source on the history of all ancient philosophy, because, refuting his predecessors, Sextus Empiricus expounds their views in detail. Moreover, philosophical views many ancient thinkers have come down to us only in the retelling of Sextus Empiricus.
Sextus Empiricus was one of the last representatives of the philosophy of skepticism in the ancient world. The tradition of the philosophy of skepticism before Sextus Empiricus was already six hundred years old, and the founders of this philosophical direction the ancient Greek thinkers Pyrrho, Timon of Phlius and Arcesilaus (IV-III centuries BC) are considered.
The essence of the teaching of skepticism is that skeptics, pointing to the relativity of human knowledge, considered any philosophical system unprovable. Sextus Empiricus argued that not only is any philosophical system unprovable, but even his own arguments against dogmatic philosophers are unprovable and unconvincing. That is why Sextus Empiricus, according to researchers, is the creator of the doctrine absolute skepticism.
One of the main goals of the philosophizing of Sextus Empiricus is to achieve equanimity. According to the thinker, a true sage is not attached to anything, loves nothing, is indifferent to everything and is not excited by anything. Therefore, all the pleasures and pains of life, all affirmations and negations are completely indifferent to him. Even the concept of happiness is indifferent to the true skeptic.
Another important feature of the skepticism of Sextus Empiricus can be considered that he was not the creator of only negative judgments. In other words, he did not at all assert that "everything is false." At the same time, there is not a single positive statement in skepticism, i.e. the truth of any propositions is not proved. Sextus Empiricus emphasized that for a true skeptic everything in the world is equally false and equally true. Even his own judgment is equally true and false, so the thinker himself “refrains” from your judgment. Sextus Empiricus said that some philosophers affirm something, others deny something, while skeptics neither affirm nor deny anything, but only still seek: "The skeptics seek."
The reason for the “skeptical” conclusions of Sextus Empiricus was the recognition of the fact that all things are constantly changing, have a changeable nature. Consequently, a person cannot catch, think or even name any thing, the essence of a thing is inaccessible to human knowledge. And if so, then the skeptic not only does not know the essence of the thing, but also does not want to know it, because he still does not know.
But such a thesis does not mean that a person cannot think or talk about things. Or that the thing has no essence. Reasoning about things and the essence of things is not at all forbidden, but it should be remembered that when reasoning about things, a person, in fact, talks about phenomena of things and not about the things themselves and their essences. Thus, a person argues, thinks and talks about seeming being. In other words, a person should not deceive himself that he is able to cognize the world - he is able to cognize only the phenomena of the world, only what he thinks.
That is why Sextus Empiricus constantly “abstains” from judgments, which is considered one of the most characteristic features the teachings of skepticism. In fact, Sextus Empiricus makes judgments and often very categorical ones. But the problem is that his own judgments are also only “apparent” judgments, which are in no way true or false. Moreover, the very statement of a judgment is not a judgment in essence, but only what “appears” to be a statement.
A similar method of thinking is carried over by skeptics into the realm of ethics. The skeptics' doctrine of universal appearance and universal abstinence has nothing in common with the denial of life, with the withdrawal from the world. According to Sextus Empiricus, to live in accordance with the phenomena of life, i.e. in accordance with what seems to be, and not in reality, for what is in fact, we do not know. Therefore, Sextus Empiricus, in principle, refuses to judge “good” and “bad”, because, even while experiencing hardships and suffering, the skeptic is indifferent to everything and does not evaluate anything at all in a good or bad sense. Skeptics, like all people, live and think, they deal with both good and evil, but refuse to express their opinion about it.
NEOEPICURAEAN
TITUS LUCRETIUS CAR
The Roman poet and philosopher Titus Lucretius Carus (ca. 99-55 BC) lived in a difficult and harsh time - during the period of the dictatorship of Sulla, the struggle of Sulla with Mary, the uprising of slaves led by Spartacus. But we know very little about the philosopher himself. Neither the place of his birth, nor the social origin, nor the position in society is known. We know that Lucretius is his family name, Titus is a proper name, and Kar is a nickname. It is also known that Lucretius committed suicide by throwing himself on a sword.
But preserved, almost in full, the main work of Lucretius - the poem "On the nature of things." It is interesting that nothing was known about this poem in Europe for many centuries. Its first edition took place only in 1473. The poem consists of six books and is a story of the author to a certain interlocutor - Memmius, whom the author sometimes addresses by name. One of the merits of Lucretius is that he introduced the word “matter” (Latin materies) into philosophical circulation, by analogy from the Latin word mater - “mother”.
Lucretius is the original interpreter of Epicurus' atomistic materialism. Like Epicurus, he sought to create a philosophy that would give man the hard-to-reach equanimity and serenity of existence.
Therefore, like Epicurus, Lucretius was a supporter of atomistic materialism, recognizing that everything in the world consists of atoms. Atoms are the beginning. Nothing is born from nothing, all things arise from atoms, which are eternal. All worlds arise from the movement of a stream of countless, invisible and intangible atoms. The reason for the movement of atoms and the entire universe is a natural necessity.
In addition to the fact that bodies are made of atoms, souls are also made of them. Unlike the atoms that make up the body, the atoms of the soul are smaller. Round, smooth and mobile. The adhesion of atoms exists only as long as there is a connection between the atoms of the body. With the death of a person, the atoms of the soul are scattered, and the atoms of the soul are also scattered.
Popularizing Epicurus, Lucretius claims the existence of a plurality of worlds, as well as the fact that the gods are unable to influence human life. Lucretius does not completely deny the existence of the gods, but gives them empty spaces between the worlds, where the gods lead a blissful existence. They can neither help, nor harm, nor threaten, nor lure people with promises of their patronage, because nature did not arise as a result of the creation of the gods and is not controlled by them, but by necessity.
Repeats Lucretius and ethical doctrine Epicurus. He argues that the greatest enemies of human happiness are the fear of death and the fear of the gods, and both of these fears dominate man. From the point of view of the atomist Lucretius, these fears are unfounded. The gods, according to Lucretius, do not play a leading role in human life and do not influence it.
Death should not be feared because the soul of a person dies simultaneously with the body and does not move to some afterlife and scary world, which also does not exist. Consequently, after death, a person will not experience any bodily or mental pain, he will not have any anguish and no desire for goods. Lucretius also understands that people are tormented by the knowledge that they will not be in the future. But he objects - after all, we don’t care much that we weren’t there in the past, so why should we be worried that we won’t be in the future? After all, we will not know any sadness in the future, just as we did not know it in the past. And in general, according to Lucretius, death is the same natural phenomenon of nature as life.
NEOPLATONISM
PLOTIN
3rd century AD - this is the period of formation of Christian theology. But at the same time, the last major philosophical system of antiquity arose - Neoplatonism. At the origins of Neoplatonism is Ammonius Sacca, who created at the turn of the II-III centuries. school in Alexandria. Plotinus (205-270) became his most famous student.
Plotinus was born in the Roman province of Egypt in the city of Lycopolis. At the age of 28, he began to attend the lectures of Ammonius, with whom he did not part for 11 years. By the will of fate, in 244, Plotinus ended up in Rome, where he opened his own school. Lectures Plotinus enjoyed unprecedented popularity among the Romans. Emperor Gallienus and his wife Solonin were so captured by the ideas of Plotinus that they promised to found the city of philosophers - Platonopolis. This project, however, was never realized.
Plotinus left behind a significant literary legacy. His student Porfiry brought together all 54 treatises of the teacher, dividing nine into six groups. Hence the name of the works of Plotinus - "Enneads" ("ennea" in Greek - nine). The Enneads, along with the dialogues of Plato and the works of Aristotle, are true masterpieces of ancient philosophy.
Plotinus himself did not claim any originality, considering himself an interpreter of the teachings of Plato. Indeed, his philosophy is based on key provisions Platonic system, which is why the philosophy of Plotinus itself is called Neoplatonism.
However, Plotinus brought Plato's doctrine of the ideal to its logical conclusion, which actually constitutes the originality of the philosophical worldview of Plotinus himself.
The main thing in Neoplatonism is the doctrine of otherworldliness and superintelligence of the first principles of the universe. According to Plotinus, the beginning and basis of the universe is a certain One - infinite and non-material. A single not only ideal beginning, but also what unites the world in its daily life, for any creature of our world remains itself only thanks to the presence of this unity in it. One is an absolutely ideal concept, not subject to our feelings and comprehended exclusively by reason and faith. "Any word that you pronounce," said Plotinus, "already expresses something, ... the only expression - "beyond everything" - corresponds to the true meaning."
The One does not depend on anything, does not aspire to anything, for it exists on its own: "It does not know any lack, it is sufficient for itself, it does not need anything." The One is the eternal Good, self-producing Good, not knowing Evil. In essence, the One is God, "the potency of all things." The One-God is so self-sufficient that, being the potentiality of all things, it does not need real things themselves.
However, from the One comes a certain activity, which Plotinus calls light. Activity begins to create incarnations of the One, i.e. produce something similar to the One. Thus, from the One, as from the first higher reality, comes the second, which Plotinus calls "Nus" - the Mind. Mind is Thinking itself. The main task of the Mind is to be aware of itself. The mind has, as it were, two sides: with one side it is turned to the One, and here it is one, undivided; and the other side is turned away from the One and here the Mind is plural. Ultimately, the Mind is the totality of all ideas, a kind of world of Plato's ideas.
The activity flowing from the One and becoming already the activity of the Mind creates the third hypostasis - the World Soul. The soul, in relation to the Mind, also has two sides - facing the Mind and averted from it. A feature of the World Soul is that it is no longer pure thinking, but a force that gives life to everything sensual and controls it.
The World Soul has, as it were, three dimensions: the “higher Soul”, as one of the incarnations of the Mind, and, accordingly, the One; "Soul of all", which defines the cosmos and the physical world; and, a kind of "lower" Soul, which animates all living things in the sensible world.
The World Soul stands, as it were, between the supersensible and the sensible worlds. According to Plotinus, the real, physical world arises as a result of the activity of the One, proceeding in this case already from the World Soul. This activity, fading and exhausted, gives rise to matter, time and space. And in this sense, the material, sensual world is only the outskirts of the World Soul. The material world is not just secondary, as Plato said about it, it is just a remnant of the activity of the One. And if the activity of the One is being, then the material world is already almost non-existence, almost nothing, for it is deprived of the true light of the One.
Therefore, the material world is the only one in the entire universe that has arisen from the One, where Evil is present. All the things of this world are only reflections of the ideas that exist in the Mind, but the reflections are distorted, untrue, and therefore possess, on the one hand, a part of the One, and on the other hand, do not know their unity, and, due to imperfection and materiality, are Evil, for matter in itself is already a source of Evil.
Man is also dual in nature. The main component of a person is his soul, which is a part of the World Soul. The material body, although it is a product and servant of the soul, but at the same time it is the source of all evil, all imperfection in man.
The main life task of a person is "reunification with the One", which he can accomplish thanks to the presence of his own soul. The path of reunification is the path of "simplification". "Throw everything off yourself," Plotinus said aphoristically. To throw off everything from oneself means not to destroy oneself as a physical organism, but to fill oneself with God to such an extent that the divine completely begins to prevail over the physical nature of the human body.
And then comes the mystical union with the One God, which Plotinus called "ecstasy": Him, (He is always there), and you do not go anywhere, but, staying, you have already turned ... "
The doctrine created by Plotinus, despite the initial enmity between Neoplatonism and Christianity, turned out to be very close in spirit to Christian theology. The idea of a trinity of principles (One, Mind, World Soul) corresponded to the Christian idea of the Holy Trinity; the call to reunion in the One, as it were, coincided with the Christian preaching of "life in Christ", etc. For many people of that time, the path to Christianity passed through the study of Neoplatonic philosophy. And subsequently, the main elements of Neoplatonism were used by Christian thinkers to create their own Christian philosophy.
© All rights reserved
