DOCSLIB.ORG

Democritus and the Critical Tradition by Joseph Gresham

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Democritus and the Critical Tradition by Joseph Gresham Miller Department of Classical Studies Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ José M. González, Supervisor ___________________________ Michael T. Ferejohn ___________________________ Jed W. Atkins ___________________________ James H. Lesher Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Classical Studies in the Graduate School of Duke University 2013 ABSTRACT Democritus and the Critical Tradition by Joseph Gresham Miller Department of Classical Studies Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ José M. González, Supervisor ___________________________ Michael T. Ferejohn ___________________________ Jed W. Atkins ___________________________ James H. Lesher An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Classical Studies in the Graduate School of Duke University 2013 Copyright by Joseph Gresham Miller 2013 ABSTRACT Modern scholars cannot agree how extant fragments of thought attributed to Leucippus and Democritus integrate (or do not) to form a coherent perspective on the ancient Greek world. While a certain degree of uncertainty is unavoidable, given the nature of the evidence available and the fact that Democritus wrote many different works (including at least one in which he deliberately argued against positions that he defended elsewhere), this study demonstrates that we know enough to take a more integrative view of the early atomists (and of Democritus in particular) than is usually taken. In the case of Democritus, this study shows that it makes good sense to read what remains of his works (physical, biological, and ethical) under the presumption that he assumes a single basic outlook on the world, a coherent perspective that informed every position taken by the atomist philosopher. Chapter 1 provides an in-depth portrait of the historical and philosophical context in which early atomism was born. As part of this portrait, it offers thumbnail sketches of the doctrines attributed to a representative catalogue of pre-Socratic philosophers to whom published work is attributed (Anaximander, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Philolaus). It demonstrates how each philosopher presumes that his theory offers a universal outlook on human reality, a perspective on the universe which purposely encompasses (and builds into a single theoretical framework) physics and biology and practical ethics. Chapter 2 introduces the early atomists as respondents to the pre-Socratic movement before them (a movement which this study refers to as the Critical Tradition). iv It presents evidence for an integrated reading of early atomist fragments, a reading that construes the Leucippus and Democritus as men of their time (working with and responding to the positions taken by their predecessors in the Critical Tradition). Chapter 3 shows how Democritus' ethics arise naturally from his physics via an historical process of development. Like his predecessors in the Critical Tradition and many of his contemporaries, the atomist deliberately imagines nature (physics) providing the raw material from which culture (ethics) naturally and inevitably rises. Chapter 4 offers an original reading of extant ethical fragments of Democritus, showing how the atomist uses his unique outlook on the world to develop a practical approach to living well. v DEDICATION Poetae mundum fabricanti verbis omnimodis atque pulmonem perpetuo risu agitanti vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract...............................................................................................................................iv Dedication...........................................................................................................................vi Abbreviations.......................................................................................................................x Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................xi Introduction. Democritus the Paradox.................................................................................1 Setting the Stage (i.1)......................................................................................................1 Democritus and Epicurus: Good Atomism versus Bad (i.2)...........................................2 Democritus and the Good Life: Man and the Animals (i.3.1).........................................6 Democritus and the Good Life: Theories of Pleasure (i.3.2)........................................12 Solving the Paradox (i.4)...............................................................................................15 Chapter 1. Before the Atomists..........................................................................................22 Introduction: Context (1.1)............................................................................................22 Fifth-century Abdera (1.2)............................................................................................23 The Critical Philosophical Tradition (1.3)....................................................................26 Anaximander (1.3.1).................................................................................................29 Xenophanes (1.3.2)...................................................................................................34 Heraclitus (1.3.3)......................................................................................................43 Parmenides (1.3.4)....................................................................................................53 Empedocles (1.3.5)...................................................................................................67 Anaxagoras (1.3.6)...................................................................................................83 Philolaus (1.3.7)........................................................................................................94 vii Conclusion: The Atomists' Problem............................................................................104 Chapter 2. The Early Atomists' ΔΙΑΚΟΣΜΟΣ ...............................................................107 Introduction: Democritus and Leucippus as Authors (2.1) .......................................107 Early Atomist Cosmogony (2.2) ..............................................................................109 The Concept of Necessity (ΑΝΑΓΚΗ) in Early Atomism (2.2.1) ...........116 Defending Supple Determinism (2.2.2) ...............................................................137 Early Atomist Zoogony and Anthropogony (2.3).......................................................145 Conclusion: Early Atomist Ethics (2.4) ....................................................................171 Chapter 3. Cosmic ΡΥΣΜΟΙ: The Foundations of Democritean Ethical Theory............177 Putting Democritean Ethics in Context (3.1)..............................................................177 The Origin and Development of Ethics according to Democritus (3.2).....................183 Humans as Animals in Democritus (3.2.1).............................................................184 Democritean Kulturgeschichte (3.2.2) ..................................................................190 Summary and Conclusion (3.2.3)...........................................................................278 Chapter 4. Happy Poverty: A New Interpretation of Democritean Ethics.......................288 Seeing Past the Straw Man of the Epicureans (4.1)....................................................288 A New Reading of Democritean Ethical Theory: Cultivating Good Habits (4.2)......306 How Education Occurs (4.2.1) ...........................................................................308 The Dangerous Power of Pleasure (4.2.2) .....................................................324 Democritus' Recipe for Human Happiness (4.2.3).................................................334 Democritus' ΔΙΟΡΙΣΜΟΣ ΤΩΝ ΗΔΟΝΩΝ (4.2.4)................................................369 Integrating Individual and Community (4.2.5).......................................................396 viii Conclusion: Understanding the Democritean ΔΙΑΚΟΣΜΟΣ (4.3).............................409 Bibliography....................................................................................................................422 Biography.........................................................................................................................430 ix ABBREVIATIONS Standard abbreviations are used for collections and editions of texts, but the reader may find the following list helpful. DK H. Diels and W. Kranz, eds. 1952 (6th ed.). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Berlin: Weidmann. KRS G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield. 1983. The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. LS Lewis, C. H., and C. Short. 1879. A Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon. LSJ Liddell, H. G., H. S. Jones, R. McKenzie, and R. Scott, edd. 1996 (9th ed). A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Luria Luria, S. 1970. Democrito: Raccolta dei frammenti, interpretazione e commentario. Reprinted 2007. Transs. A. Krivushina, D. Fusaro. Ed. G.
Recommended publications
  • Early Pyrrhonism As a Sect of Buddhism? a Case Study in the Methodology of Comparative Philosophy

    Early Pyrrhonism As a Sect of Buddhism? a Case Study in the Methodology of Comparative Philosophy

    Comparative Philosophy Volume 9, No. 2 (2018): 1-40 Open Access / ISSN 2151-6014 www.comparativephilosophy.org EARLY PYRRHONISM AS A SECT OF BUDDHISM? A CASE STUDY IN THE METHODOLOGY OF COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY MONTE RANSOME JOHNSON & BRETT SHULTS ABSTRACT: We offer a sceptical examination of a thesis recently advanced in a monograph published by Princeton University Press entitled Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. In this dense and probing work, Christopher I. Beckwith, a professor of Central Eurasian studies at Indiana University, Bloomington, argues that Pyrrho of Elis adopted a form of early Buddhism during his years in Bactria and Gandhāra, and that early Pyrrhonism must be understood as a sect of early Buddhism. In making his case Beckwith claims that virtually all scholars of Greek, Indian, and Chinese philosophy have been operating under flawed assumptions and with flawed methodologies, and so have failed to notice obvious and undeniable correspondences between the philosophical views of the Buddha and of Pyrrho. In this study we take Beckwith’s proposal and challenge seriously, and we examine his textual basis and techniques of translation, his methods of examining passages, his construal of problems and his reconstruction of arguments. We find that his presuppositions are contentious and doubtful, his own methods are extremely flawed, and that he draws unreasonable conclusions. Although the result of our study is almost entirely negative, we think it illustrates some important general points about the methodology of comparative philosophy. Keywords: adiaphora, anātman, anattā, ataraxia, Buddha, Buddhism, Democritus, Pāli, Pyrrho, Pyrrhonism, Scepticism, trilakṣaṇa 1. INTRODUCTION One of the most ambitious recent works devoted to comparative philosophy is Christopher Beckwith’s monograph Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia (2015).
  • New Candidate Pits and Caves at High Latitudes on the Near Side of the Moon

    New Candidate Pits and Caves at High Latitudes on the Near Side of the Moon

    52nd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference 2021 (LPI Contrib. No. 2548) 2733.pdf NEW CANDIDATE PITS AND CAVES AT HIGH LATITUDES ON THE NEAR SIDE OF THE MOON. 1,2 1,3,4 1 2 Wynnie Avent II and Pascal Lee ,​ S​ ETI Institute, Mountain View, VA, USA, V​ irginia Polytechnic Institute ​ ​ ​ 3 4 ​ and State University Blacksburg, VA, USA. M​ ars Institute, N​ ASA Ames Research Center. ​ ​ Summary: 35 new candidate pits are identified ​ in Anaxagoras and Philolaus, two high-latitude impact structures on the near side of the Moon. Introduction: Since the discovery in 2009 of the Marius Hills Pit (Haruyama et al. 2009), a.k.a. the “Haruyama Cavern”, over 300 hundred pits have been identified on the Moon (Wagner & Robinson 2014, Robinson & Wagner 2018). Lunar pits are small (10 to 150 m across), steep-walled, negative relief features (topographic depressions), surrounded by funnel-shaped outer slopes and, unlike impact craters, no raised rim. They are interpreted as collapse features resulting from the fall of the roof of shallow (a few Figure 1: Location of studied craters (Polar meters deep) subsurface voids, generally lava cavities. projection). Although pits on the Moon are found in mare basalt, impact melt deposits, and highland terrain of the >300 Methods: Like previous studies searching for pits pits known, all but 16 are in impact melts (Robinson & (Wagner & Robinson 2014, Robinson & Wagner 2018, Wagner 2018). Many pits are likely lava tube skylights, Lee 2018a,b,c), we used imaging data collected by the providing access to underground networks of NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Narrow tunnel-shaped caves, including possibly complex Angle Camera (NAC).
  • Skepticism and Pluralism Ways of Living a Life Of

    Skepticism and Pluralism Ways of Living a Life Of

    SKEPTICISM AND PLURALISM WAYS OF LIVING A LIFE OF AWARENESS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZHUANGZI #±r A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN PHILOSOPHY AUGUST 2004 By John Trowbridge Dissertation Committee: Roger T. Ames, Chairperson Tamara Albertini Chung-ying Cheng James E. Tiles David R. McCraw © Copyright 2004 by John Trowbridge iii Dedicated to my wife, Jill iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In completing this research, I would like to express my appreciation first and foremost to my wife, Jill, and our three children, James, Holly, and Henry for their support during this process. I would also like to express my gratitude to my entire dissertation committee for their insight and understanding ofthe topics at hand. Studying under Roger Ames has been a transformative experience. In particular, his commitment to taking the Chinese tradition on its own terms and avoiding the tendency among Western interpreters to overwrite traditional Chinese thought with the preoccupations ofWestern philosophy has enabled me to broaden my conception ofphilosophy itself. Roger's seminars on Confucianism and Daoism, and especially a seminar on writing a philosophical translation ofthe Zhongyong r:pJm (Achieving Equilibrium in the Everyday), have greatly influenced my own initial attempts to translate and interpret the seminal philosophical texts ofancient China. Tamara Albertini's expertise in ancient Greek philosophy was indispensable to this project, and a seminar I audited with her, comparing early Greek and ancient Chinese philosophy, was part ofthe inspiration for my choice ofresearch topic. I particularly valued the opportunity to study Daoism and the Yijing ~*~ with Chung-ying Cheng g\Gr:p~ and benefited greatly from his theory ofonto-cosmology as a means of understanding classical Chinese philosophy.
  • The Roles of Solon in Plato's Dialogues

    The Roles of Solon in Plato's Dialogues

    The Roles of Solon in Plato’s Dialogues Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Samuel Ortencio Flores, M.A. Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2013 Dissertation Committee: Bruce Heiden, Advisor Anthony Kaldellis Richard Fletcher Greg Anderson Copyrighy by Samuel Ortencio Flores 2013 Abstract This dissertation is a study of Plato’s use and adaptation of an earlier model and tradition of wisdom based on the thought and legacy of the sixth-century archon, legislator, and poet Solon. Solon is cited and/or quoted thirty-four times in Plato’s dialogues, and alluded to many more times. My study shows that these references and allusions have deeper meaning when contextualized within the reception of Solon in the classical period. For Plato, Solon is a rhetorically powerful figure in advancing the relatively new practice of philosophy in Athens. While Solon himself did not adequately establish justice in the city, his legacy provided a model upon which Platonic philosophy could improve. Chapter One surveys the passing references to Solon in the dialogues as an introduction to my chapters on the dialogues in which Solon is a very prominent figure, Timaeus- Critias, Republic, and Laws. Chapter Two examines Critias’ use of his ancestor Solon to establish his own philosophic credentials. Chapter Three suggests that Socrates re- appropriates the aims and themes of Solon’s political poetry for Socratic philosophy. Chapter Four suggests that Solon provides a legislative model which Plato reconstructs in the Laws for the philosopher to supplant the role of legislator in Greek thought.
  • On the Date of the Trial of Anaxagoras

    On the Date of the Trial of Anaxagoras

    The Classical Quarterly http://journals.cambridge.org/CAQ Additional services for The Classical Quarterly: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here On the Date of the Trial of Anaxagoras A. E. Taylor The Classical Quarterly / Volume 11 / Issue 02 / April 1917, pp 81 - 87 DOI: 10.1017/S0009838800013094, Published online: 11 February 2009 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009838800013094 How to cite this article: A. E. Taylor (1917). On the Date of the Trial of Anaxagoras. The Classical Quarterly, 11, pp 81-87 doi:10.1017/S0009838800013094 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAQ, IP address: 128.122.253.212 on 28 Apr 2015 ON THE DATE OF THE TRIAL OF ANAXAGORAS. IT is a point of some interest to the historian of the social and intellectual development of Athens to determine, if possible, the exact dates between which the philosopher Anaxagoras made that city his home. As everyone knows, the tradition of the third and later centuries was not uniform. The dates from which the Alexandrian chronologists had to arrive at their results may be conveniently summed up under three headings, (a) date of Anaxagoras' arrival at Athens, (6) date of his prosecution and escape to Lampsacus, (c) length of his residence at Athens, (a) The received account (Diogenes Laertius ii. 7),1 was that Anaxagoras was twenty years old at the date of the invasion of Xerxes and lived to be seventy-two. This was apparently why Apollodorus (ib.) placed his birth in Olympiad 70 and his death in Ol.
  • The Liar Paradox As a Reductio Ad Absurdum Argument

    The Liar Paradox As a Reductio Ad Absurdum Argument

    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 3 May 15th, 9:00 AM - May 17th, 5:00 PM The Liar Paradox as a reductio ad absurdum argument Menashe Schwed Ashkelon Academic College Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Schwed, Menashe, "The Liar Paradox as a reductio ad absurdum argument" (1999). OSSA Conference Archive. 48. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA3/papersandcommentaries/48 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Conference Proceedings at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Title: The Liar Paradox as a Reductio ad Absurdum Author: Menashe Schwed Response to this paper by: Lawrence Powers (c)2000 Menashe Schwed 1. Introduction The paper discusses two seemingly separated topics: the origin and function of the Liar Paradox in ancient Greek philosophy and the Reduction ad absurdum mode of argumentation. Its goal is to show how the two topics fit together and why they are closely connected. The accepted tradition is that Eubulides of Miletos was the first to formulate the Liar Paradox correctly and that the paradox was part of the philosophical discussion of the Megarian School. Which version of the paradox was formulated by Eubulides is unknown, but according to some hints given by Aristotle and an incorrect version given by Cicero1, the version was probably as follows: The paradox is created from the Liar sentence ‘I am lying’.
  • 1 ETHNICITY and JEWISH IDENTITY in JOSEPHUS by DAVID

    1 ETHNICITY and JEWISH IDENTITY in JOSEPHUS by DAVID

    ETHNICITY AND JEWISH IDENTITY IN JOSEPHUS By DAVID McCLISTER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1 © 2008 David McClister 2 To the memory of my father, Dorval L. McClister, who instilled in me a love of learning; to the memory of Dr. Phil Roberts, my esteemed colleague; and to my wife, Lisa, without whose support this dissertation, or much else that I do, would not have been possible. 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I gladly recognize my supervisory committee chair (Dr. Konstantinos Kapparis, Associate Professor in the Classics Department at the University of Florida). I also wish to thank the other supervisory commiteee members (Dr. Jennifer Rea, Dr. Gareth Schmeling, and Dr. Gwynn Kessler as a reader from the Religious Studies Department). It is an honor to have their contributions and to work under their guidance. I also wish to thank the library staff at the University of Florida and at Florida College (especially Ashley Barlar) who did their work so well and retrieved the research materials necessary for this project. I also wish to thank my family for their patient indulgence as I have robbed them of time to give attention to the work necessary to pursue my academic interests. BWGRKL [Greek] Postscript® Type 1 and TrueTypeT font Copyright © 1994-2006 BibleWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. These Biblical Greek and Hebrew fonts are used with permission and are from BibleWorks, software for Biblical
  • The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism

    The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism

    Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity Herausgeber/Editor: CHRISTOPH MARKSCHIES (Berlin) Beirat/Advisory Board HUBERT CANCIK (Berlin) • GIOVANNI CASADIO (Salerno) SUSANNA ELM (Berkeley) • JOHANNES HAHN (Münster) JÖRG RÜPKE (Erfurt) 23 John Granger Cook The Interprétation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism Mohr Siebeck JOHN GRANGER COOK, born 1955; 1976 B.A. in Philosophy, Davidson College; 1979 M. Div., Union Theological Seminary (VA); 1982-83 Doctoral research at the University of Gottin- gen; 1985 Ph.D. at Emory University; 1985-91 Pastor at Reems Creek Presbyterian Parish in Weaverville, NC/USA; 1991-94 post doctoral studies at Emory University; since 1994 Associate Professor of Religion and Philosophy at LaGrange College, GA/USA. ISBN 3-16-148474-6 ISSN 1436-3003 (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum) Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de. © 2004 by Mohr Siebeck,Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Guide-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Held in Rottenburg. Printed in Germany. For my doctoral fathers, Prof. David Hellholm and the late Prof. William Beardslee, with heartfelt gratitude Table of Contents Introduction 1 0.1 Hecataeus of Abdera (ca 300 B.C.E.) 4 0.2 Manetho (III B.C.E.) 6 0.3 Ocellus Lucanus (II B.C.E.) 8 0.4 Lysimachus 9 0.5 Apollonius Molon (I B.C.E.) 11 0.6 Alexander Polyhistor (ca 105-35 B.C.E.) 13 0.7 Diodorus Siculus (I B.C.E.) 16 0.8 Nicolaus of Damascus 19 0.9 Strabo (ca 64 B.C.E.
  • The Presocratic Philosophers 240

    The Presocratic Philosophers 240

    XV The Ionian Revival (a) A few depressing facts If the Eleatics are right, scientists may as well give up their activities: a priori ratiocination reveals that the phenomena which science attempts to understand and explain are figments of our deceptive senses; the scientist has little or nothing to investigate—let him turn to poetry or to gardening. Fortunately few Greeks reasoned in that way; and some of the brightest gems of Greek philosophical science were polished in the generation after Parmenides. Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Philolaus, Leucippus, Democritus, Diogenes of Apollonia, all pursued the old Ionian ideal of historia despite the pressure of the Eleatic logos. And these neo-Ionian systems contain much of interest and much of permanent influence. How far they were genuine answers to the Eleatic metaphysics, and how far they were obstinate attempts to follow an out-moded profession, are questions which I shall later discuss. First, I shall offer a brief and preliminary survey of the main neo-Ionian systems which will, I hope, indicate the connexions between these men and their early models, show the respects in which their new systems must lead to conflict with Elea, and uncover the novelties of thought and argument by which they hoped to win that conflict. This section, however, will concern itself primarily with a few issues of chronology. I begin with Anaxagoras: his dates are remarkably well attested, and we know he lived from 500 to 428 BC (Diogenes Laertius, II.7=59 A 1); between his birth in Clazomenae and his death in Lampsacus he enjoyed a thirty-year sojourn in Athens, during which time he is said to have ‘taught’ Pericles and Euripides (e.g., Diogenes Laertius, II.10; 12=A 1) and to have been condemned on a charge of impiety brought against him by Pericles’ political opponents (e.g., Diogenes Laertius, II.
  • SCEPTICAL ARGUMENTATION and PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGY: By

    SCEPTICAL ARGUMENTATION and PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGY: By

    SCEPTICAL ARGUMENTATION AND PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGY: TOPICS IN HELLENISTIC PHILOSOPHY by Máté Veres Submitted to Central European University Department of Philosophy In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Supervisor: Prof. Gábor Betegh CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2016 Table of contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 7 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 1. Keep calm and carry on: Sextan Pyrrhonism as a kind of philosophy ....... 17 1. Philosophy and inquiry ............................................................................................ 18 2. The road to Pyrrhonism ........................................................................................... 22 2.1. The 'origins' of scepticism (PH I. 12) ............................................................... 22 2.2. The goal of Pyrrhonism (PH I. 26 and 29)........................................................ 26 2.3. Men of talent ..................................................................................................... 34 3. The origin of Pyrrhonism ......................................................................................... 37 3.1. The Partisan Premise
  • Seminar in Greek Philosophy Pyrrhonian Scepticism 1

    Seminar in Greek Philosophy Pyrrhonian Scepticism 1

    PHILOSOPHY 210: SEMINAR IN GREEK PHILOSOPHY 1 PYRRHONIAN SCEPTICISM Monte Johnson [email protected] UCSD Fall 2014 Course Description Pyrrhonian scepticism, as represented in the works of Sextus Empiricus, presents both a culmination and critique of the whole achievement of Greek philosophy, and was a major influence on the renaissance and the scientific revolutions of the seventeenth century, and continues to influence contemporary epistemology. In this seminar, we will get a general overview of Pyrrhonian scepticism beginning with the doxographies in Book IX of Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Famous Philosophers (including Heraclitus, Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno of Elea, Leucippus, Democritus, Protagoras, Diogenes of Apollonia, Anaxarchus, Pyrrho, and Timon). The core part of the course will consist of a close reading and discussion of the three books of the Outlines of Pyrhhonian Scepticism by Sextus Empiricus, along with a more detailed examination of the treatment of logic, physics, and ethics in his Against the Dogmatists VII-XI. The last three weeks of the seminar will be devoted to student presentations relating Pyrrhonian scepticism to their own interests in philosophy (whether topical or historical). Goals • Learn techniques of interpreting and criticizing works of ancient philosophy in translation, including fragmentary works. • Obtain an overview of ancient scepticism, especially Pyrrhonian scepticism, its textual basis, predecessors, and influence upon later philosophy and science. • Conduct original research relating ancient skepticism to your own philosophical interests; compile an annotated bibliography and craft a substantial research paper. • Develop skills in discussing and presenting philosophical ideas and research, including producing handouts, leading discussions, and fielding questions. Evaluation 10% Participation and discussion.
  • The Early History of Man and the Uses of Diodorus in Renaissance Scholarship: from Annius of Viterbo to Johannes Boemus

    The Early History of Man and the Uses of Diodorus in Renaissance Scholarship: from Annius of Viterbo to Johannes Boemus

    chapter 40 The Early History of Man and the Uses of Diodorus in Renaissance Scholarship: From Annius of Viterbo to Johannes Boemus C. Philipp E. Nothaft Introduction When Diodorus of Sicily took up the stylus during the middle years of the first century bce to write a whole “library” (Bibliotheke) of universal history in forty books, the gap between gods and men had become a narrow one. In a reality deeply shaped by the past conquests of Alexander the Great and the present wars of Julius Caesar, many had begun to think of historical change as a pro- cess bound up with the heroic exploits of powerful and charismatic generals, who covered vast stretches of land, founded and destroyed cities, and created conditions under which inventions, crafts, food crops, and other goods could flow at an unprecedented rate from one end of the known world to the other. Nations and city-states reacted to their dependence on the good will of this new class of Hellenistic kings by showering them with divine honors, which sometimes developed into fully fledged ruler cults. The learned approach to mythology that was most congenial to this dynamic atmosphere of hero worship is forever associated with the name of Euhemerus of Messene (fl. 300 bce), for whom even the deities of the old pantheon had once been mere mortals, who received apotheosis on account of their military and politi- cal achievements.1 In Diodorus’s Bibliotheke, which is incidentally our most important source for Euhemerus’s life and ideas, this mythographic approach is expanded to include the deification of inventors, lawgivers, and pioneers of the arts and 1 On Euhemerism and its afterlife, see Marek Winiarczyk, The “Sacred History” of Euhemerus of Messene (Berlin: De Gruyer, 2013); Jean Seznec, The Survival of the Pagan Gods, trans.