DOCSLIB.ORG

Curriculum Vitae Professor Brad Inwood Updated July 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Curriculum Vitae Professor Brad Inwood Updated July 2020 1. Contact Information William Lampson Professor of Philosophy and of Classics Department of Classics Yale University 344 College Street P.O. Box 208266 New Haven CT 06520-8266 2. Degrees B.A. Classics, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ont., 1974. M.A. Classics, University of Toronto, 1975. Ph.D. Classics, University of Toronto, 1981. 3. Awards, Honours and Scholarships Canada Council Doctoral Fellowships: 1976-9. Queen Elizabeth II Ontario Scholarship: 1980. Mellon Post-Doctoral Fellowship, Stanford University: 1981. SSHRCC Research Grant: $14,660 for work on Stoic ethics, 1991-94. Elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, April 1994. Fellow, National Humanities Centre (US$10,000 for work on Seneca), 1995-6. Canada Research Chair in Ancient Philosophy, 2000-2015. Connaught Research Fellowship, University of Toronto, 2001. SSHRCC Research Grant: 2001-2004 ‘Reading Seneca’ $29,484. Fellow, Centre for Advanced Study in the Behavioural Sciences, 2004-5. (Grant: US$10,000) February 2007 A.E. Taylor lecturer at the University of Edinburgh. Elected University Professor, University of Toronto, May 2007. Easter term 2008: Malcolm Bowie Distinguished Visitor at Christ's College, Cambridge February 2009 Eberhard L. Faber Memorial lecturer, Princeton University. Winner of the Northrop Frye Award (teaching), University of Toronto, 2010. April 2011 Carl Newell Jackson lecturer, Harvard University. SSHRCC Research Grant: $70,750 ‘Ethics after Aristotle’, 2011. October 2016 Crake lecturer in Classics, Mount Allison University. April 2018 Gregory Vlastos Memorial Lecturer, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario October 2018 James Bradley Memorial Lecturer, Memorial University of Newfoundland Elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, April 2109. Named the William Lampson chair of Philosophy and of Classics, July 2019. 4. Employment 1981-2 Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow in Classics, Stanford University. 1982-1986 Assistant Professor of Classics, University of Toronto. 1986 promoted to Associate Professor of Classics (with tenure), University of Toronto; appointed as a continuing member of the School of Graduate Studies. 1987 appointed to the Graduate Department of Philosophy. 1990-2010 adjunct member of the Centre for Comparative Literature. 1990 promoted to Professor of Classics, University of Toronto. 2006 cross-appointed to the Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto. 2007 promoted to University Professor of Philosophy and Classics, University of Toronto. 2007 Faculty Associate, Centre for Ethics, University of Toronto. 2009 Associate, Centre for Jewish Studies, University of Toronto. 2010 appointed full member, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto. 2015- Professor of Philosophy and Classics, Yale University; University Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto. 5. Publications Refereed Publications Articles and Chapters 1. ‘A Note on Commensurate Universals in the Posterior Analytics’ Phronesis 24 (1979) 320- 329. 2. ‘The Origin of Epicurus’ Concept of Void’ Classical Philology 76 (1981) 273-285. 3. ‘A Note on Desire in Stoic Theory’ Dialogue 21 (1982) 329-331. 4. ‘A Note on Erasmus’ Use of Historical Exempla’ Erasmus in English 12 (1983) 10-13. 5. ‘The Two Forms of Oikeiosis in Arius and the Stoa’ pp. 190-201 in On Stoic and Peripatetic Ethics: The Work of Arius Didymus, ed. W.W. Fortenbaugh; New Brunswick, N.J. 1983. 6. ‘Plato, Leibniz and the Furnished Soul’ (with Graeme Hunter), in Journal of the History of Philosophy 22 (1984) 423-434. 7. ‘Hierocles: Theory and Argument in the Second-Century A.D.’ Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 2 (1984) 151-183. 8. ‘The Stoics on the Grammar of Action’ Southern Journal of Philosophy vol. 23 Supp. (1985) 75-86. 9. ‘Goal and Target in Stoicism’ Journal of Philosophy 83 (1986) 547-556. 10. ‘Anaxagoras and Infinite Divisibility’ Illinois Classical Studies 11.1-2 (1986) 17-33. 11. Review of F.H. Sandbach Aristotle and the Stoics in Philosophical Review 95 (1986) 470- 473. 12. Commentary on ‘The origins of the concept of natural law’ by Gisela Striker, pp. 95-101 in Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy, vol. 2; ed. J. Cleary (University Press of America, 1987). 13. ‘Professor Stokes on Adeimantus in the Republic’ pp. 97-103 in Justice, Law and Method in Plato and Aristotle, ed. S. Panagiotou (Edmonton 1987). 14. ‘Areios Didymos’ pp. 345-347 in Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques, vol. 1, ed. Richard Goulet (Paris 1989). 15. Annotated translations of Erasmus’ Oratio de Virtute Amplectenda and Oratio Funebris for the Collected Works of Erasmus vol. 29 pp. 1-30 and 424-430 (University of Toronto Press 1989). 16. Review of Malte Hossenfelder, Die Philosophie der Antike 3: Stoa, Epikureismus und Skepsis, in Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 71 (1989) 73-81. 17. ‘Rhetorica Disputatio: the strategy of De Finibus II’ pp. 143-164 in The Poetics of Therapy (= Apeiron 23.4 [1990]) ed. Martha Nussbaum. 18. ‘Chrysippus on Extension and the Void’ Revue Internationale de Philosophie 178 (1991) 245-266. 19. Review of Alexander of Aphrodisias: Ethical Problems, ed. and trans. R.W. Sharples in Philosophical Review 101 (1992) 845-847. 20. ‘Seneca and Psychological Dualism’, pp. 150-183 in Passions and Perceptions, edd. J. Brunschwig and M. Nussbaum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1993). 21. ‘Politics and Paradox in Seneca’s De Beneficiis’ , pp. 241-265 in Justice and Generosity edd. A. Laks and M. Schofield (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1995). 22. Review of Philolaus of Croton by Carl Huffman, in Philosophical Review 104 (1995) 118- 120. 23. ‘Why do fools fall in love?’ pp. 55-69 in Aristotle and After, ed. R. Sorabji (London: Institute of Classical Studies 1997). 24. Article ‘Empedocles’ for Encyclopedia of Classical Philosophy, ed. D. Zeyl (Greenwood Publishing, Westport, Connecticut) 201-206. 25. ‘Seneca in his Philosophical Milieu’, pp. 63-76 in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 97 (1995). 26. ‘Rules and Reasoning in Stoic Ethics’ pp. 95-127 in Topics in Stoic Philosophy, ed. K. Ierodiakonou (Oxford University Press 1999). Appeared in Greek translation in vol. 15.1 of Deucalion (Athens 1997). 27. ‘Stoicism’, chapter 7 of the Routledge History of Philosophy vol. 2 (ed. D.J. Furley), 1999. Pp. 222-252. 28. Five articles for Routledge’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Musonius, Epictetus, Seneca, Hierocles, Marcus Aurelius. 29 ‘Truth in Moral Medicine’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 49 (1999) 805-810. 30. ‘Stoic Ethics’ (I-VII) pp. 675-705 in Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy ed. K. Algra et al. (Cambridge University Press 1999). 31. ‘God and human knowledge in Seneca’s Natural Questions’ Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 15 (1999) 23-43. Expanded version published in Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its background and aftermath (Proceedings of the 1998 Symposium Hellenisticum) edd. D. Frede and A. Laks (Brill 2002), pp. 119-157. 32. ‘The Will in Seneca the Younger’ Classical Philology 95 (2000) 44-60. 33. Review of Epictetus: Discourses 1 by Robert Dobbin, in Philosophical Review 109 (2000) 634-637. 34. Comments on C.C.W. Taylor ‘The Origins of Our Present Paradigms’ pp. 85-92 in New Perspectives on Plato, Modern and Ancient edd. Julia Annas and Christopher Rowe (Harvard University Press 2002 = Center for Hellenic Studies Colloquia vol. 6). 35. Comments on Stephen White ‘Happiness in the Hellenistic Lyceum’ Apeiron 35.4 (2002) 95- 101 = Lawrence Jost and Roger A. Shiner, eds., Eudaimonia and Well-Being (Kelowna, BC: Academic Printing and Publishing 2002). 36. ‘Reason, Rationalization and Happiness in Seneca’ pp. 91-107 in Rationality and Happiness from the ancients to the medievals ed. Jorge Gracia and Jiyuan Yu (University of Rochester Press 2003). 37. ‘Natural Law in Seneca’ in Studia Philonica 15 (2003) (edd. H. Najman, D. O’Connor, and G. Stirling), 81-99. 38. ‘Moral Judgement in Seneca’ in Stoicism: traditions and transformations, (edd. Zupko and Strange, Cambridge University Press 2004), 76-94. Reprinted in Ancient Ethics edd. Jörg Hardy and George Rudebusch, V&R unipress, 2014. 39. Review of Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics by Sarah Broadie and Christopher Rowe Philosophical Review 112 (2003) 567-570. 40. ‘Seneca on Freedom and Autonomy’ in Metaphysics, Soul and Ethics. Themes from the Work of Richard Sorabji (ed. R. Salles, Oxford University Press, 2005), 489-505. 41. ‘Who do we think we are?’ pp. 230-243 in The Virtuous Life in Greek Ethics (ed. B. Reis) Cambridge University Press, 2006. 42. ‘Law in Roman Philosophy’ ch. 6, sections 2-5 in Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence vol. 6 (ed. Fred D. Miller) Kluwer Publishing, 2007. 43. ‘Moral Causes: The Role of Physical Explanation in Ancient Ethics’ pp. 14-36 in Thinking About Causes: from Greek Philosophy to Modern Physics (ed. P. Machamer and G. Wolters), University of Pittsburgh Press, 2007. 44. ‘The Importance of Form in the Letters of Seneca the Younger’ pp. 133-148 in. Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography (Ruth Morello and Andrew Morrison edd.) Oxford University Press, 2007. 45. ‘Seneca, Plato and Platonism: the case of Letter 65’ pp. 149-167 in Platonic Stoicism and Stoic Platonism (edd. Mauro Bonazzi and Christoph Helmig) Leuven University Press, 2007. 46. ‘Why Physics?’ pp. 201-223 in God and Cosmos in Stoicism ed. R. Salles Oxford University Press 2009. 47. ‘Empedocles and metempsychosis: the critique of Diogenes of Oenoanda’ pp. 71-86 in Leib und Seele in der antiken Philosophie / Body and Soul in Ancient Philosophy ed. Dorothea Frede and Burkhard Reis (De Gruyter 2009). 48. ‘Stoicism’ pp. 126-139 in L. Gerson, ed. Cambridge History of Philosophy in Later Antiquity (Cambridge 2010). 49. ‘Antiochus on Physics’ pp. 188-219 in The Philosophy of Antiochus ed. David Sedley; Cambridge University Press, 2012. 50. ‘How unified is Stoicism anyway?’ pp. 223-244 Virtue and Happiness: essays in honour of Julia Annas ed. Rachana Kamtekar (2012, supplementary volume of Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy).
Recommended publications
  • 166 BOOK REVIEWS Gretchen Reydams-Schils, the Roman Stoics

    166 BOOK REVIEWS Gretchen Reydams-Schils, the Roman Stoics

    166 BOOK REVIEWS Gretchen Reydams-Schils, The Roman Stoics: Self, Responsibility and Affection. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2005. xii + 210 pp. ISBN 0-226-30837-5. In the third book of the Histones Tacitus presents us with the ludicrous picture of a Stoic philosopher mingling with the soldiers of the Flavian army as it prepares to invade the city, and preaching unheeded the blessings of peace and the dangers of war (3.81). The purveyor of this intempestiva sapientia was Musonius Rufus, an eques Romanus, a friend of many Roman senators, a political exile, and the hero of this book. The author sets out to prove that the Roman Stoics adapted originally Greek Stoic doctrine to emphasize the importance of social responsibility and social engagement to the life of virtue. Stoicism, for all its emphasis on self-sufficiency, independence of outer circumstances, and spiritual self-improvement, saw the instinct for sociability as implanted by divine providence in human beings, who were imbedded in a society of rational beings comprising men and gods. What the author thinks was the distinctive contribution of the Roman Stoics was to retrieve for the life of virtue the traditional relationships of parenthood and marriage that Plato and the Cynics had tried to denigrate. It is therefore not the Musonius Rufus of Roman politics that interests her, but the advocate of marriage as a union of body and soul between equals and the opponent of infanticide and child exposure. The structure of the book reflects this emphasis, for it ‘reverses the Stoic progression from self to god and universe’ (5).
  • The Little Book of Stoicism

    The Little Book of Stoicism

    The Little Book of Stoicism Timeless Wisdom to Gain Resilience, Confidence, and Calmness Jonas Salzgeber Illustrations © 2019 Jonas Salzgeber. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2019 Jonas Salzgeber THE LITTLE BOOK OF STOICISM. All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in critical articles or reviews. First paperback published 2019. FIRST EDITION. ISBN: 978-1791967284 www.njlifehacks.com Contents Introduction 1 PART 1: WHAT IS STOICISM 9 Chapter 1: The Promise of Stoic Philosophy 11 Practice the Art of Living: Become a Warrior- Philosopher 12 Promise #1: Eudaimonia 14 Promise #2: Emotional Resilience 17 Tame Restricting Emotions (≠ Unemotional) 19 Practice Stoicism and Become more Tranquil as a By-Product 23 Chapter 2: A Quick History Lesson 26 The Most Important Stoic Philosophers 29 Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BCE – 65 CE) 30 Musonius Rufus (c. 30 CE – c. 100 CE) 32 Epictetus (c. 55 CE – c. 135 CE) 33 Marcus Aurelius (121 CE – 180 CE) 34 Chapter 3: The Stoic Happiness Triangle 36 The Stoic Happiness Triangle in A Nutshell 38 1. Live with Areté: Express Your Highest Self in Every Moment 40 The Perfection of Our Natural Potential 43 The Four Cardinal Virtues 47 Character Beats Beauty 51 The Stoic Love of Mankind: Act for the Common Welfare 53 2. Focus on What You Control: Accept Whatever Happens and Make the Best Out of It 56 The Stoic Archer: Focus on the Process 60 Stoic Acceptance: Enjoy the Ride or Get Dragged Along 63 The Good, the Bad, and the Indifferent Things 67 In Poker as in Life, You Can Win with Any Hand 71 3.
  • Plato's Cratylus

    Plato's Cratylus

    Cambridge University Press 0521584922 - Plato’s Cratylus David Sedley Frontmatter More information PLATO’S CRATYLUS Plato’s Cratylus is a brilliant but enigmatic dialogue. It bears on a topic, the relation of language to knowledge, which has never ceased to be of central philosophical importance, but tackles it in ways which at times look alien to us. In this radical reappraisal of the dialogue, Professor Sedleyargues that the etymologieswhich take up well over half of it are not an embarrassing lapse or semi-private joke on Plato’s part. On the contrary,if taken seriouslyas theyshould be, theyare the keyto understanding both the dialogue itself and Plato’s linguistic philosophymore broadly.The book’s main argument is so formulated as to be intelligible to readers with no knowledge of Greek, and will have a significant impact both on the studyof Plato and on the history of linguistic thought. david sedley is Laurence Professor of Ancient Philosophyat the Universityof Cambridge. His work has ranged over most periods and subject areas of Greek and Roman philosophy, including a number of editions of philosophical texts preserved on papyrus. He has been a visiting professor at Princeton, Berkeley, Yale and Cornell, and in2004 will be the Sather Professor at Berkeley. He is the author of Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom (Cambridge 1998) and (with A. A. Long) The Hellenistic Philosophers (Cambridge 1987), as well as editor of The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Philosophy (Cambridge 2003). He has been editor of Classical Quarterly (1986–92) and, since 1998,ofOxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy.
  • The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

    The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

    The meditations of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Originally translated by Meric Casaubon About this edition Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus was Emperor of Rome from 161 to his death, the last of the “Five Good Emperors.” He was nephew, son-in-law, and adoptive son of Antonius Pius. Marcus Aurelius was one of the most important Stoic philosophers, cited by H.P. Blavatsky amongst famous classic sages and writers such as Plato, Eu- ripides, Socrates, Aristophanes, Pindar, Plutarch, Isocrates, Diodorus, Cicero, and Epictetus.1 This edition was originally translated out of the Greek by Meric Casaubon in 1634 as “The Golden Book of Marcus Aurelius,” with an Introduction by W.H.D. Rouse. It was subsequently edited by Ernest Rhys. London: J.M. Dent & Co; New York: E.P. Dutton & Co, 1906; Everyman’s Library. 1 Cf. Blavatsky Collected Writings, (THE ORIGIN OF THE MYSTERIES) XIV p. 257 Marcus Aurelius' Meditations - tr. Casaubon v. 8.16, uploaded to www.philaletheians.co.uk, 14 July 2013 Page 1 of 128 LIVING THE LIFE SERIES MEDITATIONS OF MARCUS AURELIUS Chief English translations of Marcus Aurelius Meric Casaubon, 1634; Jeremy Collier, 1701; James Thomson, 1747; R. Graves, 1792; H. McCormac, 1844; George Long, 1862; G.H. Rendall, 1898; and J. Jackson, 1906. Renan’s “Marc-Aurèle” — in his “History of the Origins of Christianity,” which ap- peared in 1882 — is the most vital and original book to be had relating to the time of Marcus Aurelius. Pater’s “Marius the Epicurean” forms another outside commentary, which is of service in the imaginative attempt to create again the period.2 Contents Introduction 3 THE FIRST BOOK 12 THE SECOND BOOK 19 THE THIRD BOOK 23 THE FOURTH BOOK 29 THE FIFTH BOOK 38 THE SIXTH BOOK 47 THE SEVENTH BOOK 57 THE EIGHTH BOOK 67 THE NINTH BOOK 77 THE TENTH BOOK 86 THE ELEVENTH BOOK 96 THE TWELFTH BOOK 104 Appendix 110 Notes 122 Glossary 123 A parting thought 128 2 [Brought forward from p.
  • The Stoics and the Practical: a Roman Reply to Aristotle

    The Stoics and the Practical: a Roman Reply to Aristotle

    DePaul University Via Sapientiae College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences 8-2013 The Stoics and the practical: a Roman reply to Aristotle Robin Weiss DePaul University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/etd Recommended Citation Weiss, Robin, "The Stoics and the practical: a Roman reply to Aristotle" (2013). College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations. 143. https://via.library.depaul.edu/etd/143 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE STOICS AND THE PRACTICAL: A ROMAN REPLY TO ARISTOTLE A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August, 2013 BY Robin Weiss Department of Philosophy College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences DePaul University Chicago, IL - TABLE OF CONTENTS - Introduction……………………..............................................................................................................p.i Chapter One: Practical Knowledge and its Others Technê and Natural Philosophy…………………………….....……..……………………………….....p. 1 Virtue and technical expertise conflated – subsequently distinguished in Plato – ethical knowledge contrasted with that of nature in
  • Was Aristotle a Naïve Realist? by Michael Makled

    Was Aristotle a Naïve Realist? by Michael Makled

    Was Aristotle a Naïve Realist? by Michael Makled A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honors Department of Philosophy in the University of Michigan 2016 Advisor: Professor Victor Caston Second Reader: Professor Tad Schmaltz 1 2 Contents 1. Realism and Naïve Realism 2. Aristotle’s Theory of Perception in De Anima: how do sensibles cause perception? 3. Contrary Appearances and Metaphysics Gamma V: is the world as it appears to be? 4. Conclusion 3 Introduction Realism and Naïve Realism In the Assayer, Galileo advocates a mathematical approach to scientific inquiry that leads him to striking conclusions about the relationship between the world and our perceptions of it. Considering the concept of heat, for instance, he says: “I suspect that people in general have a concept of this which is very remote from the truth. For they believe that heat is a real phenomenon or property, or quality, which actually resides in the material by which we feel ourselves warmed.”1 In this vein, Galileo makes a paradigmatic statement of what is called, in the philosophy of perception, eliminativism: Hence I think that tastes, odors, colors, and so on are no more than mere names so far as the object in which we place them is concerned, and that they reside only in the consciousness. Hence if the living creature were removed, all these qualities would be wiped away and annihilated. (Galileo, The Assayer, p. 274)2 Galileo thinks that a number of the qualities that figure most prominently in our experience of the world are merely subjective.
  • Philosophy of Happiness Regents Professor Julia Annas

    Philosophy of Happiness Regents Professor Julia Annas

    Philosophy 220: Philosophy of Happiness Regents Professor Julia Annas. MWF 1 – 1.50 pm. Chavez 301. The course has a D2L website, where all the readings are to be found. My office is Social Science Building 123. Office hours TBA. The Philosophy Department office is Social Sciences Building 213. Why happiness? Happiness matters!. There are large numbers of self-help books telling us how to be happy. Some nations are planning to measure the happiness of their citizens to find out how it can be increased. There is a huge field of ‘happiness studies’, and focus on happiness in positive psychology as well as politics and law. Much of this is confusing, since it’s often not clear what the authors think happiness is. Is it feeling good? Is it having a positive attitude to the way you are now? Is it having a positive attitude to your life as a whole? Is it having a happy life? How can some people advise others on how to be happy? Philosophers have explored happiness, and our search for happiness, for two thousand years. They have asked what happiness is, and have developed different answers, including some now being rediscovered. In this course we will ask what happiness is, and look at major answers. We’ll look at rich philosophical traditions of thinking about happiness, and also at some recent work in the social sciences. We’ll examine the contributions being made to the ongoing search to find out what happiness is, and how we can live happy lives. Course Readings Course readings will be available on the D2L site.
  • Comparison of Focus and Audience Between Seneca's Natural

    Comparison of Focus and Audience Between Seneca's Natural

    East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works 5-2014 Comparison of Focus and Audience Between Seneca’s Natural Questions and Pliny’s Natural History Joshua Ely East Tennessee State University Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd Part of the European History Commons, History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons, Intellectual History Commons, and the Oral History Commons Recommended Citation Ely, Joshua, "Comparison of Focus and Audience Between Seneca’s Natural Questions and Pliny’s Natural History" (2014). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 2368. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/2368 This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Comparison of Focus and Audience Between Seneca’s Natural Questions and Pliny’s Natural History _____________________________ A thesis presented to the faculty of the Department of History East Tennessee State University _____________________________ In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History _____________________________ by Joshua J. Ely May 2014 _____________________________ Dr. William D. Burgess Jr, Chair. Dr. Brian Maxson Dr. John Rankin Keywords: History of Antiquity, History of Science, Rome, Pliny, Seneca, Natural History, Natural Questions ABSTRACT Comparison of Focus and Audience Between Seneca’s Natural Questions and Pliny’s Natural History by Joshua Ely Around 65 AD, the Ancient Roman philosopher Seneca wrote his only text concerning Natural Phenomenon: Natural Questions.
  • Cicero on Epicurean Friendship: a Reappraisal 109

    Cicero on Epicurean Friendship: a Reappraisal 109

    Cicero on Epicurean Friendship: A Reappraisal 109 POLITEIA VOL. 1, No 2, SPRING 2019 APPENDIX CICERO ON EPICUREAN FRIENDSHIP: A REAPPRAISAL Phillip Mitsis New York University Given the occasion, I thought I might take the opportunity to revisit my first pub- lished paper on Epicureanism1 originally begun in a Lucretius seminar at Cornell in 1978 taught by Elizabeth Asmis. The paper's argument now seems to me in retrospect to exhibit a certain naive confidence in Cicero's reliability as a source, and though I still stand by some of its overall conclusions about Epicurean friendship, my views about the nature of the path that one needs to take to get to those conclusions has changed considerably.2 Readers will best judge whether a forty-year gap in looking at these arguments, apart from merely complicating matters, has led to any progress. At De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum 1.65-70, Cicero, through the character of Tor- quatus, offers our most detailed and seemingly systematic surviving account of Epi- curean views of friendship. Brad Inwood has forcefully reminded us, however, that this work has a particular focus and that its overall structure and arguments clearly reflect it.3 Cicero is examining what the fines (limits, ends, criteria, etc.) of goods and of evils are in various rival philosophical theories and in the first two books he sets himself the project of presenting and criticizing the Epicurean claim that pleasure serves as a final end or goal of our actions. One recurring problem in his account is that he glosses the notion of finis with terms having different valences and, thus, those wishing to extract from Cicero's discussion Epicurus' original view of friendship are faced with the problem that he often describes the relation of friendship to pleasure in terminology imprecise enough to encompass different theoretical outlooks.
  • Discovering Romanity in Seneca's De Otio and De Brevitate Vitae Joshua Dean Wimmer Wimmer8@Marshall.Edu

    Discovering Romanity in Seneca's De Otio and De Brevitate Vitae Joshua Dean Wimmer [email protected]

    Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar Theses, Dissertations and Capstones 1-1-2012 Lend Me Your Voice: Discovering Romanity in Seneca's De otio and De brevitate vitae Joshua Dean Wimmer [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://mds.marshall.edu/etd Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons Recommended Citation Wimmer, Joshua Dean, "Lend Me Your Voice: Discovering Romanity in Seneca's De otio and De brevitate vitae" (2012). Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 255. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LEND ME YOUR VOICE: DISCOVERING ROMANITY IN SENECA’S DE OTIO AND DE BREVITATE VITAE A Thesis submitted to the Graduate College of Marshall University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Latin by Joshua Dean Wimmer Approved by Dr. E. Del Chrol, Committee Chairperson Dr. Caroline Perkins Dr. Christina Franzen Marshall University May 2012 Copyright by Joshua Dean Wimmer 2012 ii Dedication and Acknowledgments DEDICATION Pro parentibus meis ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would sincerely like to extend my most deeply felt gratitude to Dr. E. Del Chrol, Dr. Caroline Perkins, and Dr. Christina Franzen of the Department of Classics at Marshall University, as well as to any and to all who have helped in some way, no
  • Seneca's Concept of a Supreme Being in His Philosophical Essays and Letters Robert James Koehn Loyola University Chicago

    Seneca's Concept of a Supreme Being in His Philosophical Essays and Letters Robert James Koehn Loyola University Chicago

    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations 1947 Seneca's Concept of a Supreme Being in His Philosophical Essays and Letters Robert James Koehn Loyola University Chicago Recommended Citation Koehn, Robert James, "Seneca's Concept of a Supreme Being in His Philosophical Essays and Letters" (1947). Master's Theses. Paper 641. http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/641 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1947 Robert James Koehn SENECA'S CONCEPT OF A SUPRE.'ME BEING IN HIS PHILOSOPHICAL ESSAYS AND LETTERS BY ROBERT J. KOEHN, S.J. A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF ~qE REQUIREMENTS FOR A MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE IN THE CLASSICS AUGUST 1947 VITA AUCTORIS Robert James Koehn was born in Toledo, Ohio, on September 2, 1917. After attending St. James parochial school, he entered st. John's High School in September 1931. Upon his graduation in 1935 he attended St. John's and DeSales Colleges before entering the So­ ciety of Jesus on September 1, 1937. He matriculated at Xavier University, Cincinnati, and received a Bachelor of Li­ terature degree in June 1941. Following his transfer to West Baden College, West Baden Springs, Indiana, in the summer of 1941, he entered the graduate school of Loyola Uni­ versity, Chicago, in the Classics.
  • MICHAEL FREDE Michael Johannes Frede 1940–2007

    MICHAEL FREDE Michael Johannes Frede 1940–2007

    MICHAEL FREDE Michael Johannes Frede 1940–2007 WHEN MICHAEL JOHANNES FREDE died (11 August 2007), by drowning in the Corinthian Gulf at a beach near Itea below Delphi, Greece, the world of ancient philosophy lost the most accomplished philosopher and scholar, and one of the most distinguished and influential teachers, of the generation of specialists in this field internationally who began their careers in the 1960s and 1970s. He was born 31 May 1940, in Kreuzberg, a working-class district of Berlin, the first child of Roman Catholic parents (a second, Stefanie, was born several years later). He was brought up in Germany and educated there through the Ph.D. and beyond, emigrating later, first to the United States in 1971, then to the United Kingdom, where he was Professor of the History of Philosophy at Oxford University and Fellow of Keble College from 1991 until he chose to retire two years before required, in 2005. In 1943, at the age of two, the apartment building where his family lived was reduced to rubble in an Allied bombing attack while his mother had taken him out for a walk in his carriage, so the family had to move, first to Lippstadt in Westphalia and then in the early 1950s to Hamburg, where Frede attended the Sankt Ansgar-Gymnasium, a Jesuit school, studying classics and the classical languages (Abitur 1959). At university, he studied first in Munich (1959–60) then back in Hamburg (1960–2), where he became a student of Günther Patzig; he rejoined Patzig at Göttingen in 1963 to complete his Ph.D., after a momentous year (1962–3) at Oxford, on Patzig’s suggestion and with his assistance, as a visiting research student, working on his dissertation on Plato’s Sophist, in consul- tation with G.