DOCSLIB.ORG

Diogenes Laërtius: a Moderate Skeptic in the History of Philosophy (Book IX)∗

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Diogenes Laërtius: a Moderate Skeptic in the History of Philosophy (Book IX)∗ Philosophy Study, April 2021, Vol. 11, No. 4, 293-302 doi: 10.17265/2159-5313/2021.04.005 D D AV I D PUBLISHING Diogenes Laërtius: A Moderate Skeptic in the History of Philosophy (Book IX)∗ Ramón Román-Alcalá University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain This paper presents the keys and reasons for Diogenes Laërtius’ alleged scepticism, based on an analysis of the general design of his work The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers. I believe that it would be manifestly erroneous to seek confirmation of this scepticism solely in Book IX without taking into account the overall structure of the work. A convincing explanation is also provided of one of the most enigmatic and most studied phrases in this work. What did Diogenes mean when he said that Apollonides of Nicaea was ὁ παρ’ ἡμῶν (“one of us”)? Keywords: scepticism, Diogenes Laërtius, sextus, Pyrrho, The Lives of Philosophers The Singular Book IX of “The Lives” Diogenes Laërtius’ work Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers was already relatively well-known in antiquity, due not only to the author’s popularity but also to the singularity of the work, in which he had succeeded in faithfully characterising much of ancient historiography. Moreover, and this is important to highlight in our introduction, taking into account the structure of many of the books and sources mentioned by Diogenes, this work began a new and highly original historiographic genre, which could be called “successions”. Diogenes’ Lives of Philosophers is a singular work. It starts with an introduction focusing on the origins of philosophy (which were undoubtedly Greek), the different classifications of philosophy and philosophers. The author then presents two series of philosophers, as two starting points of philosophy: one starting with the Seven Sages or Wise men and ending with the Stoics, and including Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (Books I-VII), which Diogenes called the Ionian school, since Thales was the first recognised philosopher and came from Ionia; and another series that started with Pythagoras and ended with the Sceptics and Epicurus, followed by Heraclitus, Xenophanes, Parmenides or Democritus, among others, and which he referred to as the Italic school (Books VIII-X). In all the books or explanations of philosophical schools, he mentions philosophers who lived up to the first century B.C., except in the succession of the sceptics, in which he mentions authors up to 200 A.D. Therefore, each book is unique and different in terms of its structure and philosophical and literary references. This means that Diogenes used a series of different materials and sources. In addition to the authors’ ∗Acknowledgement: Article is a deliverable of the Research Project I+D+i FFI2016-32989 on skepticism financed by the Ministry of Economics and Competitivity. Ramón Román-Alcalá, Ph.D., professor, Department of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain. 294 DIOGENES LAËRTIUS: A MODERATE SKEPTIC IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY biographies, there are collections of sayings, lists of works, lists of documents, information on dubious traditions, etc. All this information confirms, without a shadow of doubt, that Diogenes’ work could not have been based on a single source with new information introduced by the author. In our opinion, Book IX is one of the most complex books. It contains exceptional data and mysterious, original, and unusual references that make it one of the most challenging books in the entire work. Book IX mainly reviews most of the succession of philosophers presented by Diogenes in Book I (pp. 13-15), between Pythagoras and Epicurus1. As mentioned previously, Diogenes described two philosophical schools: the Ionian school, which was founded by Thales; and the Italic school, founded by Pythagoras. Between the life of Pythagoras described in Book VIII and that of Epicurus in Book X, the philosophers included in the Italic succession in the preface are described in Book IX. However, the list of authors in Book IX includes more than those mentioned and presents very disconcerting aspects and certain selections of philosophers that are initially unexplainable. So, with this article, I want to try two ideas: One is that Diogenes provides evidence of a moderate scepticism in his most famous book; the other is that we can only affirm this, if we look at the general structure of the work and not only the Book IX, where the skeptics appear. The Successions of Philosophers: Formulae Clarifying Philosophy If the general line of succession described by Diogenes in Book I, 15, is, broadly speaking, common to the list of authors that appears in Book IX, there are certain specific aspects that differ from the Italic succession of philosophers, presented in the preface, which may provide some clues as to the reason for this strange selection. The first striking aspect is that Heraclitus is included among the Pythagorean philosophers mentioned in Book VIII and the Eleatics in Book IX, although he traditionally does not appear linearly in any succession of these philosophers (Román-Alcalá, 2012a). Furthermore, Heraclitus and Xenophanes share one characteristic that distinguishes them from the other philosophers (οί σποράδην), namely that they do not belong to any school. It is also interesting that Diogenes of Apollonia appears between Protagoras and Anaxarchus. Many authors believe that this is an error and that Diogenes Laërtius confused Diogenes of Apollonia with Diogenes of Smyrna (D.L. IX, p. 58)2. However, I believe that he is included here deliberately3 because Diogenes of Apollonia, whose doxography derived from Theophrastus, was a key figure in the history of scepticism. And, lastly, but most importantly, it includes the sceptic philosophers Pyrrho and Timon. I have already argued elsewhere (Román-Alcalá, 2007) that for Pyrrho’s contemporaries the only viable scepticism was that of the Platonic Academy (Clayman, 2009). That is to say, there would be “Pyrronians” in that they follow the teachings of Pyrrho, but not “pyrrhonics” 4 in the sense of forming a school or philosophical movement with a certain doctrine. The great mistake of Antiochus, the last head of the platonic academy, was to transform the Platonic Academy into dogmatic Stoicism, which forced Aenesidemus, who was a disciple of the sceptical platonic academy, to search for a new origin of skepticism (in Pyrrho of Elis) and recover the sceptic line abandoned in the academy. In this context of recomposition of scepticism, Diogenes 1 This is the basic thesis supported by Decleva Caizzi (1992, pp. 4218-4240). 2 For example, Hicks (1925, pp. 184-185) believes this confusion exists. 3 Cf. Decleva Caizzi (1992, p. 4220; Laks, 1983, Appendix 4, pp. 258 et seq.); also see the translation by Gigante (1962, p. 564, Note 192). 4 There are doubts about the unequivocal reality of a radical Pyrrhonic school, see Román-Alcalá (2012b, pp. 111-130), in this article defending its invention as a school, group or sect and the reasons for this invention by Diogenes Laërtius. DIOGENES LAËRTIUS: A MODERATE SKEPTIC IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 295 Laërtius wrote Book IX. Therefore, in my opinion, the key for understanding this book lies in his development of scepticism5 and his direct affiliation with the Abderites and some pre-Socratics. The most important part of this book therefore focuses on Pyrrho’s relationship with the philosophy that preceded him. In this section, Diogenes claims that Pyrrho’s scepticism developed due to the influence of Anaxarchus, a pupil of Democritus (D.L. IX, pp. 58, 61, 72, 107). This surprising affirmation is interesting because although Democritus and Anaxarchus inspired Pyrrhonian philosophy according to Diogenes, they also belonged to a strong Pre-Socratic tradition. Thus, in this book, Diogenes groups the following thinkers: Heraclitus, Xenophanes, Parmenides, Melissus, Zeno, Leucippus, Democritus, Protagoras, Diogenes of Apollonia, Anaxarchus, Pyrrho, and Timon. Diogenes Laërtius’ reasons for including all these philosophers in Book IX or in other books are unclear. However, it is likely that Diogenes grouped authors with similar lines of thought. If this was the case, then authors, such as Heraclitus, Xenophanes, and Parmenides must have had something in common: They started, according to Diogenes, a type of philosophy that was developed by Democritus and Protagoras and culminated in Pyrrho. I maintain the hypothesis that Diogenes grouped in Book IX all the authors who shared a common concern for knowledge, which, after different developments, culminated in Pyrrhonian scepticism. This idea could seem strange if there were no other evidence to confirm it. Examples of texts that mention this group of philosophers at the same time as Diogenes Laërtius show that was not an anomaly but a sequence. We will start with a text by Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata, XIV I 64, 2-4, in which he writes: Xenophanes of Colophon was the founder of the Eleatic school. Parmenides was the disciple of Xenophanes, and Zeno of him; then came Leucippus, and then Democritus. Disciples of Democritus were Protagoras of Abdera and Metrodorus of Chios, whose pupil was Diogenes of Smyrna; and his again Anaxarchus, and his Pyrrho, and his Nausiphanes. Some say that Epicurus was a scholar of his. (Clemente, Strommata, I, XIV, 64, 2-4: DK 21 A 8: Decleva Caizzi, 25 A)6 Significantly, this text of Clement, which, as in Diogenes’ work, ranges from Xenophanes to Pyrrho, is also supported by Eusebius of Caesarea, albeit with certain differences. In one noteworthy text, he writes: A disciple of Xenophanes was Parmenides, and his Melissus, and his Zeno, and his Leucippus, and his Democritus, and his Protagoras and Nesa, and his again Metrodorus, and his Diogenes, and his Anaxarchus. And a companion of Anaxarchus was Pyrrho, who founded the current (discourse) of the so-called skeptics. (Eusebio de Cesárea, 1843, pp.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • Anaximander and the Problem of the Earth's Immobility John Robinson Windham College
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The Open Repository @Binghamton (The ORB) Binghamton University The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB) The ocS iety for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter 12-28-1953 Anaximander and the Problem of the Earth's Immobility John Robinson Windham College Follow this and additional works at: https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp Recommended Citation Robinson, John, "Anaximander and the Problem of the Earth's Immobility" (1953). The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter. 263. https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp/263 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). It has been accepted for inclusion in The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter by an authorized administrator of The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). For more information, please contact [email protected]. JOHN ROBINSON Windham College Anaximander and the Problem of the Earth’s Immobility* N the course of his review of the reasons given by his predecessors for the earth’s immobility, Aristotle states that “some” attribute it I neither to the action of the whirl nor to the air beneath’s hindering its falling : These are the causes with which most thinkers busy themselves. But there are some who say, like Anaximander among the ancients, that it stays where it is because of its “indifference” (όμοιότητα). For what is stationed at the center, and is equably related to the extremes, has no reason to go one way rather than another—either up or down or sideways.
    [Show full text]
  • Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum, Book Five
    Binghamton University The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB) The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter 12-1986 The Lives of the Peripatetics: Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum, Book Five Michael Sollenberger Mount St. Mary's University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons, Ancient Philosophy Commons, and the History of Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Sollenberger, Michael, "The Lives of the Peripatetics: Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum, Book Five" (1986). The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter. 129. https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp/129 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). It has been accepted for inclusion in The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter by an authorized administrator of The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). For more information, please contact [email protected]. f\îc|*zx,e| lîâ& The Lives of the Peripatetics: Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosoohorum Book Five The biographies of six early Peripatetic philosophers are con­ tained in the fifth book of Diogenes Laertius* Vitae philosoohorum: the lives of the first four heads of the sect - Aristotle, Theophras­ tus, Strato, and Lyco - and those of two outstanding members of the school - Demetrius of Phalerum and Heraclides of Pontus, For the history of two rival schools, the Academy and the Stoa, we are for­ tunate in having not only Diogenes' versions in 3ooks Four and Seven, but also the Index Academicorum and the Index Stoicorum preserved among the papyri from Herculaneum, But for the Peripatos there-is no such second source.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Cynicism
    A HISTORY OF CYNICISM Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com A HISTORY OF CYNICISM From Diogenes to the 6th Century A.D. by DONALD R. DUDLEY F,llow of St. John's College, Cambrid1e Htmy Fellow at Yale University firl mll METHUEN & CO. LTD. LONDON 36 Essex Street, Strand, W.C.2 Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com First published in 1937 PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com PREFACE THE research of which this book is the outcome was mainly carried out at St. John's College, Cambridge, Yale University, and Edinburgh University. In the help so generously given to my work I have been no less fortunate than in the scenes in which it was pursued. I am much indebted for criticism and advice to Professor M. Rostovtseff and Professor E. R. Goodonough of Yale, to Professor A. E. Taylor of Edinburgh, to Professor F. M. Cornford of Cambridge, to Professor J. L. Stocks of Liverpool, and to Dr. W. H. Semple of Reading. I should also like to thank the electors of the Henry Fund for enabling me to visit the United States, and the College Council of St. John's for electing me to a Research Fellowship. Finally, to• the unfailing interest, advice and encouragement of Mr. M. P. Charlesworth of St. John's I owe an especial debt which I can hardly hope to repay. These acknowledgements do not exhaust the list of my obligations ; but I hope that other kindnesses have been acknowledged either in the text or privately.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Logic and Reality: a Stoic Perspective (Spring 2013)
    Language Logic and Reality: A Stoic Perspective Aaron Tuor History of Lingustics WWU Spring 2013 1 Language, Logic, and Reality: A Stoic perspective Contents 1 Introduction: The Tripartite Division of Stoic Philosophy.............................3 2 Stoic Physics...................................................................................................4 3 Stoic Dialectic.................................................................................................4 3.1 A Stoic Theory of Mind: Logos and presentations..........................4 3.2 Stoic Philosophy of Language: Lekta versus linguistic forms.........6 3.3 Stoic Logic.......................................................................................7 3.3.1 Simple and Complex Axiomata........................................7 3.3.2 Truth Conditions and Sentence Connectives....................8 3.3.3 Inference Schemata and Truths of Logic..........................9 3.4 Stoic Theory of Knowledge.............................................................10 3.4.1 Truth..................................................................................10 3.4.2 Knowledge........................................................................11 4 Conclusion: Analysis of an eristic argument..................................................12 4.1 Hermogenes as the Measure of "Man is the measure."...................13 Appendix I: Truth Tables and Inference Schemata...........................................17 Appendix II: Diagram of Communication.........................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • 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’.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cosmic System of the Pre-Socratic Philosopher Anaximenes and Stars
    The cosmic system of the pre-Socratic philosopher Anaximenes and stars and their formation Konstantinos Kalachanis1, Evangelia Panou1, Efstratios Theodossiou1, Ioannis Kostikas1, Vassilios N. Manimanis1, Milan S. Dimitrijevi´c2,3 1 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Physics, Department of Astrophysics, Astronomy and Mechanics, Panepistimiopolis, Zographos 15784, Athens, Greece 2 Astronomical Observatory, Volgina 7, 11060 Belgrade, Serbia 3 IHIS Technoexperts, Beˇzanijska 23, 11080 Zemun, Serbia [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] (Submitted on 03.12.2014; Accepted on 19.04.2015) Abstract. In the paper is presented Anaximenes theory of air as the initial cause of na- ture which is transcendental. We examine Anaximenes account on the formation of Earth and stars, which is based on the accumulations and ”thinning” of the primal substance, and discuss some similar characteristics with the scientific theory of star formation, while the philosopher’s reference to the fiery nature of stars reflects the theories of energy production in their interior. Key words: History of Astronomy, Anaximenes, Star formation Introduction The pre-Socratic period of Greek philosophy was undoubtedly the first ma- jor landmark in the history of philosophy and science; then for the first time the human intellect attempted to explain natural phenomena based on the relation between cause and effect. Pioneers in this attempt were the philosophers of Miletus, Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes, who, in their effort to explain the origins of the world, expressed interesting as- tronomical views, which sometimes have similarities with results of modern science.
    [Show full text]
  • THE PHILOSOPHY BOOK George Santayana (1863-1952)
    Georg Hegel (1770-1831) ................................ 30 Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) ................. 32 Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach (1804-1872) ...... 32 John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) .......................... 33 Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) ..................... 33 Karl Marx (1818-1883).................................... 34 Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) ................ 35 Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914).............. 35 William James (1842-1910) ............................ 36 The Modern World 1900-1950 ............................. 36 Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) .................... 37 Ahad Ha'am (1856-1927) ............................... 38 Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) ............. 38 Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) ....................... 39 Henri Bergson (1859-1941) ............................ 39 Contents John Dewey (1859–1952) ............................... 39 Introduction....................................................... 1 THE PHILOSOPHY BOOK George Santayana (1863-1952) ..................... 40 The Ancient World 700 BCE-250 CE..................... 3 Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936) ................... 40 Introduction Thales of Miletus (c.624-546 BCE)................... 3 William Du Bois (1868-1963) .......................... 41 Laozi (c.6th century BCE) ................................. 4 Philosophy is not just the preserve of brilliant Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) ........................ 41 Pythagoras (c.570-495 BCE) ............................ 4 but eccentric thinkers that it is popularly Max Scheler
    [Show full text]
  • Who Was Protagoras? • Born in Abdêra, an Ionian Pólis in Thrace
    Recovering the wisdom of Protagoras from a reinterpretation of the Prometheia trilogy Prometheus (c.1933) by Paul Manship (1885-1966) By: Marty Sulek, Ph.D. Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy For: Workshop In Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies February 10, 2015 Composed for inclusion in a Festschrift in honour of Dr. Laurence Lampert, a Canadian philosopher and leading scholar in the field of Nietzsche studies, and a professor emeritus of Philosophy at IUPUI. Adult Content Warning • Nudity • Sex • Violence • And other inappropriate Prometheus Chained by Vulcan (1623) themes… by Dirck van Baburen (1595-1624) Nietzsche on Protagoras & the Sophists “The Greek culture of the Sophists had developed out of all the Greek instincts; it belongs to the culture of the Periclean age as necessarily as Plato does not: it has its predecessors in Heraclitus, in Democritus, in the scientific types of the old philosophy; it finds expression in, e.g., the high culture of Thucydides. And – it has ultimately shown itself to be right: every advance in epistemological and moral knowledge has reinstated the Sophists – Our contemporary way of thinking is to a great extent Heraclitean, Democritean, and Protagorean: it suffices to say it is Protagorean, because Protagoras represented a synthesis of Heraclitus and Democritus.” Nietzsche, The Will to Power, 2.428 Reappraisals of the authorship & dating of the Prometheia trilogy • Traditionally thought to have been composed by Aeschylus (c.525-c.456 BCE). • More recent scholarship has demonstrated the play to have been written by a later, lesser author sometime in the 430s. • This new dating raises many questions as to what contemporary events the trilogy may be referring.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]