Exploring Ancient Greek Philosophies: Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus

[Apology; Crito]

[Nicomachean Ethics]

[Letter to Menocceus and Principal Doctrines] The philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BC.) has lived in Greece at trouble times, when the Hellenic cities have declined. This opens the materialistic physical paths of peace and serenity, ataraxia, namely the absence of disorder and anxiety. First, we need not fear the gods, who are blessed and immortal beings. But we must also penetrate the idea that death does not concern us at all. - That means, in fact, dead? dissolution and the permanent loss of sensitivity, a single episode that does not physically disturb us. - Being dead is to be dissolved, that is to say, be devoid of feeling. - But we have no reason to experience the anxiety about a simple physiological fact. - Death is the death of death, since, once dead, we do not think of. The only real thing before us is the pleasure, enjoyment stable and painless, with roots in the body and in the flesh. - "The pleasure we have in mind is characterized by the absence of bodily pain and disorders of the soul." - The pleasure is at rest and in equilibrium: the search for natural pleasures wise and necessary, generating a stable enjoyment, natural and peaceful. Here sits a distinction famous Epicurean ethics. There are three types of desires: - The natural desires and requirements: ► The only people who should be selected, which represent the movement lead us to fulfill in accordance with nature (to be free of physical needs, eating bread, water ...) - The natural desires and unnecessary: ► Correspondent to search for various objects, refined (eg, fine drinks, exquisite food ...) - The desires that are neither natural nor necessary: ► Are the tensions of the soul to the opinions or judgments hollow or empty (eg the desire for glory and fame ...) The wise man is content only natural and necessary pleasures. Thus emerges the fig of Epicurean Wise, enjoying peace, stability and quiet pleasure. He acquired a perfect peace of soul, having banished the vain fears of the gods and death. - The wise man is one whose rule of reason judgments and that suffices to itself. - Everything is material, he thinks he professes and materialism opens to spiritual peace.

[Encheiridion]

[Outlines of Pyrrhonism]

[Free Choice of the Will]

[Consolation of Philosophy]

[Summa Theologiae]

Plato's account of the speech Socrates makes at the trial in which he is charged with not recognizing the gods recognized by the state, inventing new deities, and corrupting the youth of Athens. It was not a real apology, but rather a defense for his conduct and himself. He explains that his behavior stems from a prophecy by the oracle at Delphi which claimed that he was the wisest of all men. Socrates explains that he considered it his duty to question supposed "wise" men and to expose their false wisdom as ignorance. These activities earned him much admiration amongst the youth of Athens, but much hatred and anger from the people he embarrassed. He cites their contempt as the reason for his being put on trial. Socrates stoically accepts the verdict with the observation that no one but the gods know what happens after death and so it would be foolish to fear what one does not know. He also warns the jurymen who voted against him that in silencing their critic rather than listening to him, they have harmed themselves much more than they have harmed him.

Cross-examination that was common in the Platonic dialogues. Otherwise known as holding opposite views/beliefs.

Greek word meaning defense.

Platonic dialogue that takes place in Socrates' prison cell, where he awaits execution. He is visited before dawn by his old friend Crito, who has made arrangements to smuggle Socrates out of prison to the safety of exile. Socrates seems quite willing to await his imminent execution, and so Crito presents as many arguments as he can to persuade Socrates to escape. Crito presents two more pressing arguments: first, if he stayed, he would be aiding his enemies in wronging him unjustly, and would thus be acting unjustly himself; and second, that he would be abandoning his sons and leaving them without a father. Socrates answers first that one should not worry about public opinion, but only listen to wise and expert advice. Socrates introduces the voice of the Laws of Athens, which speaks to him and explain why it would be unjust for him to leave his cell. If Socrates were to break from prison now, having so consistently validated the social contract, he would be making himself an outlaw who would not be welcome in any other civilized state for the rest of his life. And when he dies, he will be harshly judged in the underworld for behaving unjustly toward his city's laws. Thus, Socrates convinces Crito that it would be better not to attempt an escape.

Aristotelian writing which embodied happiness as the highest good and the end at which all our activities ultimately aim. As such, it [happiness] is the supreme good. The difficulty is that people don't agree on what makes for a happy or good life, so the purpose of the Ethics is to find an answer to this question. Aristotle defines the supreme good as an activity of the rational soul in accordance with virtue. Virtue for the Greeks is equivalent to excellence. A virtuous person is someone who performs the distinctive activity of being human well. Since our rationality is our distinctive activity, its exercise is the supreme good.Aristotle defines moral virtue as a disposition to behave in the right manner and as a mean between extremes of deficiency and excess, which are vices. We learn moral virtue primarily through habit and practice rather than through reasoning and instruction. Virtue is a matter of having the appropriate attitude toward pain and pleasure. he best measure of moral judgment is choice, since choices are always made voluntarily by means of rational deliberation. We always choose to aim at the good, but people are often ignorant of what is good and so aim at some apparent good instead, which is in fact a vice.

In his Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus follows Aristotle and clearly identifies three possible causes - "some things happen of necessity, others by chance, others through our own agency." Aristotle said some things "depend on us" (eph hemin). Epicurus agreed, and said it is to these last things that praise and blame naturally attach. For Epicurus, the chance "swerve" (or clinamen) of the atoms simply defeated determinism to leave room for autonomous agency.

Do not cause trouble for yourself or for others. This lets you be free from anger and bias. These are signs of weakness. Death is nothing to us. Once we become dissolved atoms, we don't experience anything. We're gone. Why worry if you can't experience anything? Maximum pleasure is feeling no pain. Even the worst pains do not last long. In the long run, life is more pleasant than unpleasant, even if you have a nasty disease. You have to be good to be happy. You have to be happy to be good. It is good to be protected from other men. Some people want to be famous so that they can be independent. If that worked, I would approve. But I doubt that fame leads to independence. All pleasures are good. Most pleasures, however, lead to disturbances that are worse than the pleasure. Stay focussed and do not get caught up in the pursuit of these pleasures. If pleasures added up, then pleasures would never differ from one another. We need some pain to feel pleasure. If wealth made people unafraid of death, disease, famine and war, then wealth would be good. If wealth taught people to be satisfied with a simple life, then I could not complain. But it does not. We developed science to get rid of our fears of death, disease, famine and war. Learning science helps us relax. Superstition leads to fear. You can only have pure pleasure if you know science. You can't enjoy wealth or security if you don't understand science. Wealth and power lead to security to some degree. But a quiet, solitary life is the best way to be secure. You want much, but need little. Wisdom frees you from being worried about what the future holds. Being good means you won't have to worry. The evil must worry.When needs are gone, bodily pleasure is just an assortment of minor variations. Mental pleasure, however, reaches its limit when we look back on how worried we were about those needs. A short life is just as pleasant a life that never ends. Your mind can limit your wants. You only need a little, but at first, everyone wants an unlimited amount. Stop worrying about the future. Try not to want the things you do not really need, and you will find you will not need to try everything. Limiting wants removes worries of death. And remember: even when you are dying, life is still pleasant. You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you just might find, you can get what you need. Be scientific. Don't fight what you feel. Be careful about what you admit to be true. If you doubt everything, you will end up nowhere. But if you do not doubt enough, you will end up muddled and making mistakes. Make up your mind in advance about the things you should want. Then make everything you do a step towards those goals. You do not need something unless you are in actual pain when that 'need' goes unfulfilled. If you are not in pain, then get rid of that want. Wise people know that friendship brings the most happiness. Friends will protect you against insecurity.There are three kinds of want: natural and necessary, natural and unnecessary, and neither natural nor necessary. Don't be dumb: if you aren't in actual pain without something, you don't need it. You just think you do. Of course, many people go through much trouble to get things they don't really need. 'Justice' is really only a contract that I won't hurt you and you won't hurt me. If you didn't get it in writing, it is your own damed fault if you got ripped off. Don't blame the other guy. There is no one perfect set of laws. There are many imperfect systems of justice. There is nothing inherently wrong with breaking the law, but it will make you unhappy because you will be afraid of getting caught. Even good crooks get caught, so they always have to worry. The same thing can be just and unjust in different places. Good laws make people happy. If a law stops making people happy, it is not a good law. If a law never led to happiness, it was never just. If a law stopped leading to happiness, it stopped being just. Powerful men can make everyone their friends. They can trust anyone, because they don't need to be afraid. Secure people live pleasant lives. There is no need to mourn the death of someone who lived a peaceful life. There is nothing to pity.

Once we realized that things can not reach us, only our judgments on these things, we are invincible, because our judgments on these things are our only power. Nothing can reach us without our consent, "the disease is a barrier for the body, but not the will, if it wants to. Lameness is an impediment for the legs, but not the will. You say the same for each accident, and you will find it an impediment to something else, but not for you." It's about working our judgments, so as to remain impassive and without sadness when something painful affects us. Because it can be a positive assessment of this event. For example: my TV does not work anymore, so much the better, because I'm going to read a good book instead ... This is the famous Stoic equanimity (ataraxia), which leads to stay calm under all circumstances. Care must be taken to maintain equanimity in these cases the limits posed by the death of a loved one, "never say of anything:" I lost it. " But "I have made." Your child is dead, it is made. Your wife is dead, it is made. My property I was delighted. Well it is also made." Grant importance to things that depend on us achieves a kind of invincibility, that nothing outside can disturb "you can be invincible, if you do not commit yourself in any fight, where it does not depend on you to be victorious. " The model to follow is ataraxia: "If you are not yet Socrates, you must live as if you wanted to be Socrates." Wise man is also distinguished by his humility: "If we just tell you that this was wrong about you, do not justify on what you reported, but say," he must ignore all other defects that are in me, to speak only of those only which were known ". Finally it is serious and austere. Laughter trouble indeed, as the desire, serenity, "Do not laugh much, or many things, and without restraint." This is also a way to "slip into vulgarity. "The first and most important part of the philosophy is to put into practice the maxims, such as" should not lie. " The second is the demonstration of maxims such as "where does it must not lie? ". The third is the one that confirms and explains these demonstrations, such as "where does it demonstrate? What is a demonstration, a consequence, an objection that the true, the false? ". Or Stoicism is essentially a practice. The aim of philosophy is not to know things from a theoretical point of view, but to apply our theoretical findings: "The longer necessary, that that needs to rest, this is the first. Us, we act in reverse. We focus in the third part, all our concern is for her, and we neglect the first absolutely. We lie because we are prepared to demonstrate that one should not lie. "

Pyrrhonism is more a mental attitude or therapy than a theory. It involves setting things in opposition and owing to the equipollence of the objects and reasons, one suspends judgement. "We oppose either appearances to appearances or objects of thought to objects of thought or alternando." The ten modes induce suspension of judgement and in turn a state of mental suspense followed by ataraxia. If ever one is in a position in which they are unable to refute a theory, Pyrrhonists reply "Just as, before the birth of the founder of the School to which you belong, the theory it holds was not as yet apparent as a sound theory, although it was really in existence, so likewise it is possible that the opposite theory to that which you now propound is already really existent, though not yet apparent to us, so that we ought not as yet to yield assent to this theory which at the moment seems to be valid." These ten modes or tropes were originally listed by Aenesidemus. "The same impressions are not produced by the same objects owing to the differences in animals." The same impressions are not produced by the same objects owing to the differences among human beings. The same impressions are not produced by the same objects owing to the differences among the senses.Owing to the "circumstances, conditions or dispositions," the same objects appear different. The same temperature, as established by instrument, feels very different after an extended period of cold winter weather than after mild weather in the autumn. Time appears slow when young and fast as aging proceeds. Honey tastes sweet to most but bitter to someone with jaundice. A person with influenza will feel cold and shiver even though she is hot with a fever. "Based on positions, distances, and locations; for owing to each of these the same objects appear different." The same tower appears rectangular at close distance and round from far away. The moon looks like a perfect sphere to the human eye, yet cratered from the view of a telescope."We deduce that since no object strikes us entirely by itself, but along with something else, it may perhaps be possible to say what the mixture compounded out of the external object and the thing perceived with it is like, but we would not be able to say what the external object is like by itself." "Based, as we said, on the quantity and constitution of the underlying objects, meaning generally by "constitution" the manner of composition." So, for example, goat horn appears black when intact and appears white when ground up. Snow appears white when frozen and translucent as a liquid. "Since all things appear relative, we will suspend judgement about what things exist absolutely and really existent. Do things which exist "differentially" as opposed to those things that have a distinct existence of their own, differ from relative things or not? If they do not differ, then they too are relative; but if they differ, then, since everything which differs is relative to something..., things which exist absolutely are relative." "Based on constancy or rarity of occurrence." The sun is more amazing than a comet, but because we see and feel the warmth of the sun daily and the comet rarely, the latter commands our attention. "There is a Tenth Mode, which is mainly concerned with Ethics, being based on rules of conduct, habits, laws, legendary beliefs, and dogmatic conceptions."

Augustine handout #2 - On Free Choice of Will*, Summary of 1.1-11 Phil 201 - Dr. Tobias Hoffmann Problem: how can these affirmations be reconciled? (1) God is good (2) God is the creator of all things (3) There is evil in the word God is good ⇒ God does not cause any moral evil; he does however cause the evil of punish- ment (but that does not contradict his goodness) (1.1, p. 1). • Can moral evil be traced to God, so that he is indirectly the cause of evil, mediated by evil creatures? - What is it to do evil? (1.3, p. 4) - To act against the eternal law (1.5-6, pp. 8-11). - What does the eternal law command? - That all things be perfectly ordered (1.6, p. 11) - What does it mean for a human being to be perfectly ordered? - That reason rules the irrational part of the soul (1.8, p. 14) - Hence when the mind or reason does not rule the irrational part, this is sin, in other words, when inordinate desire enslaves the mind, this is sin (e.g. adultery). - How is it possible that inordinate desire may enslave the mind? (cf. 1.10) What makes the mind subject to inordinate desire? (What makes a good person do evil?) Is inordinate desire more powerful than the mind? - No, because the weaker does not control the stronger; "the mind must be more power- ful than cupidity precisely because it is right and just for the mind to rule over cupidity"; "every virtue is superior to every vice" (1.10, p. 16). Is an evil spirit [ex. the devil, or a wicked person who tempts others to sin] more powerful than the mind? - No: since virtue is superior to vice and stronger than vice, "no vicious spirit defeats a spirit armed with virtue" (1.10, p. 16). Is a material object more powerful than the mind? [E.g., delicious cake, money, the beauty of a woman] - No, because a spirit is better and more powerful than any material object (1.10, p. 16). Can a just spirit subject another mind to inordinate desire? (1.10, p. 16-17). - No, because: - a just spirit possesses excellence, - and it would become vicious and thus weaker than the mind (1.10, p. 17). Answer (1.11, p. 17): "The conclusions that we have reached thus far indicate that a mind that is in control, one that possesses virtue, cannot be made salve to inordinate desire - by anything equal or superior to it, because such a thing would be just, - or by anything inferior to it, because such a thing would be too weak. - ... [O]nly its own will and free choice can make the mind a companion of cupidity." • Would it have been better if God had not given man free will? (If yes, then God must be blamed for the moral evil committed by man after all.) - If we had not received a free will, we could not have done moral evil, but we could not do any moral good either. (2.1, p. 30)

a philosophical work by Boethius, written around the year 524. It has been described as the single most important and influential work in the West on Medieval and early Renaissance Christianity, and is also the last great Western work of the Classical Period. The Consolation of Philosophy was written during a one-year imprisonment Boethius served while awaiting trial - and eventual horrific execution - for the crime of treason under the Ostrogothic King Theodoric the Great. Boethius was at the very heights of power in Rome and was brought down by treachery. This experience inspired the text, which reflects on how evil can exist in a world governed by God (the problem of theodicy), and how happiness can be attainable amidst fickle fortune, while also considering the nature of happiness and God. It has been described as "by far the most interesting example of prison literature the world has ever seen." Even though reference is often made to God, the book is not strictly religious. A link is often assumed, yet there is no reference made to Jesus Christ or Christianity or any other specific religion other than a few oblique references to Pauline scripture, such as the symmetry between the opening lines of Book 4 Chapter 3 and 1 Corinthians 9:24. God is however represented not only as an eternal and all-knowing being, but as the source of all Good. Boethius writes the book as a conversation between himself and Lady Philosophy. She consoles Boethius by discussing the transitory nature of fame and wealth ("no man can ever truly be secure until he has been forsaken by Fortune"), and the ultimate superiority of things of the mind, which she calls the "one true good". She contends that happiness comes from within, and that one's virtue is all that one truly has, because it is not imperilled by the vicissitudes of fortune. Boethius engages questions such as the nature of predestination and free will, why evil men often prosper and good men fall into ruin, human nature, virtue, and justice. He speaks about the nature of free will versus determinism when he asks if God knows and sees all, or does man have free will. To quote V.E. Watts on Boethius, God is like a spectator at a chariot race; He watches the action the charioteers perform, but this does not cause them. On human nature, Boethius says that humans are essentially good and only when they give in to "wickedness" do they "sink to the level of being an animal." On justice, he says criminals are not to be abused, rather treated with sympathy and respect, using the analogy of doctor and patient to illustrate the ideal relationship between prosecutor and criminal. In the Consolation, Boethius answered religious questions without reference to Christianity, relying solely on natural philosophy and the Classical Greek tradition. He believed in the correspondence between faith and reason. The truths found in Christianity would be no different from the truths found in philosophy. In the words of Henry Chadwick, "If the Consolation contains nothing distinctively Christian, it is also relevant that it contains nothing specifically pagan either...[it] is a work written by a Platonist who is also a Christian, but is not a Christian work."

The Summa is composed of three major parts, each of which deals with a major subsection of Christian theology. First Part (in Latin, Prima Pars): God's existence and nature; the creation of the world; angels; the nature of man. Second Part: First part of the Second Part (Prima Secundae, often abbreviated Part I-II): general principles of morality (including a theory of law) Second part of the Second Part (Secunda Secundae, or Part II-II): morality in particular, including individual virtues and vices. Third Part (Tertia Pars): the person and work of Christ, who is the way of man to God; the sacraments; the end of the world. Aquinas left this part unfinished. Each part contains several questions, each of which revolves around a more specific subtopic; one such question is "Of Christ's Manner of Life."Each question contains several articles phrased as interrogative statements dealing with specific issues, such as "Whether Christ should have led a life of poverty in this world?" The Summa has a standard format for each article. A series of objections to the (yet to be stated) conclusion are given; one such objection, for example, is that "Christ should have embraced the most eligible form of life...which is a mean between riches and poverty." A short counter-statement, beginning with the phrase sed contra ("on the contrary"), is then given; this statement almost always references authoritative literature, such as the Bible or Aristotle.[8] In this instance, Aquinas begins, "It is written (in Matthew 8:20): 'The Son of Man hath not where to lay His head.' " The actual argument is then made; this is generally a clarification of the issue. For example, Aquinas states that "it was fitting for Christ to lead a life of poverty in this world" for four distinct reasons, each of which is expounded in some detail. Individual replies to the preceding objections are then given, if necessary. These replies range from one sentence to several paragraphs in length. Aquinas's reply to the above objection is that "those who wish to live virtuously need to avoid abundance of riches and beggary, ...but voluntary poverty is not open to this danger: and such was the poverty chosen by Christ." This method of exposition is derived from Averroes, to whom Aquinas refers respectfully as "the Commentator".

The philosophy of Epicurus and his followers, combining an ethical hedonism with a materialist theory. Reformulating these doctrines in such a way as to counter various points in Plato and Aristotle, Epicurus built them into a recognizably hellenistic system, with ethics supported by physics and epistemology.

Logic studies the conditions of access to knowledge. However, the sensitive is the model of truth. When the soul is essentially receptive, we talk about representation, defined as an imprint in the soul. To arrive at science, that is to say a firm understanding and assured, the mind must actively intervene and clear the truth, thanks in particular to prolepses or preconceptions, that contains the core principles from the origin and that external objects arouse. The set of preconceptions is the reason. Stoic morality is a morality of freedom. Despite the fate, the man remains free of its representations and opinions. We can, despite the lack of control causes, have control of our representations. Freedom for them means the power to act for yourself at the thought and decision. That depends on us, what are our opinions and desires. This does not depend on us, the body, reputation, honor, property.Control representations leads to ataraxia, ie the serenity of the soul, the absence of disorder, apathy, state of the soul that perceives even more pain. The man reached and the highest good, happiness conceived as existence in accordance with nature or God, as life in accordance with reason. The passions are the main danger in the life of Sage, but he managed to dominate the dominant representations.

Arguably the most influential philosopher in the Western hemisphere (everything after his death is merely a footnote). He wrote lyrics and dialogues and was associated with sophists.believed in spirit of daimon and was often associated with netharius individuals (tyrants, traitors)

wise men; Coming from Sophia which means wisdom; Sophists therefore are skeptics and teachers.

traits of character

one of the most important verbs in ancient Greek; rationality; reason.

Do well to friends, bad to enemies

the real world

virtual world

Concerning virtues of character, vegetative (does not share reason) and closiderative (obedient to reason); habituation

Concerned with virtues of thoughts, Phronesis (prudence) has sense of listening, Sophia (wisdom) has reason fully; teaching

prudence

Wanting to be rewarded for accomplishments

to strive for the fine, the beauty

rational and right desire of the good; we need to act on the right goods

Concerned with only the self

Acting from duty

Guiding actions

Love and friendship

Summarization of Epicureans by Philodemus: 1. Do not fear the gods 2. Do not worry about death 3. What is good (pleasure) is easy to get 4. What is bad (pain) is easy to endure

Freedom from fear; the goal we're all looking for

Pleasure is the goal and criterion to define what is good for us.

goal

endorse as true

inordinate desire

The ordering of thing to an end; Knowing something beforehand

The universal cause that includes all particular causes. Looking out from a superior view (God)