DOCSLIB.ORG

Epicurus' Scientific Method

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Epicurus' Scientific Method Binghamton University The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB) The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter 10-1976 Epicurus' Scientific Method Elizabeth Asmis University of Chicago, [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 Asmis, Elizabeth, "Epicurus' Scientific Method" (1976). The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter. 157. https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp/157 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]. \''J 7 G .···� Epicurus1 Scientific Method (1) 1 by Elizabeth Asmis (Octob er ,. 19/,6) I con cede right away that Epicurus was not interested in scientific discovery for its own sake. But I cl:�.im that he did have a method by which he developed his conclusions about nature and that this method qualifies as a scientific method. As I shall try to show, his method consists in deducing what is non-apparent (a6n>.ov) from the phenomena. This procedure was, I p:ropose� derived by Epicurus from the early atomists, who developed it in opposition to Parmenides' method of deducing what there is from ;1it is". I shall first.offer a brief summary of Epicurus 1 method of investigation and I shall then illustrate it by analyzing a.section of argument from the Letter to Herodotus� starting with Epicurus1 first deduction about what is non-apparent (that nothing comes to be from non-being) and ending with the deduction' that there is .• · void (Her. 38-40) Ep icurus proposes tv10 rules of investigation. These rules are stated in a short procedural note which is prefixed by Epicurus to the summary of his physical do ctrines in the Letter to Herodotus (37-38). The two rules state the two condi tions which must be satisfied if an investigation is to occur; they jointly form an answer to the problenn posed by Plato in the Meno. The first rule is the requirement fo r initial concepts; the second is the requirement for observation ·1.c.onducted in accordance with one's perceptions and feelings. Concepts are needed to serve as objects by reference to which proposals are judged. Observation is needed to provide evidence C1signsH) crnµe:ta) for what is not manifest. Diogenes Laertius (10.33) illustrates the first requirement by noting that we must have a concept of a horse (or an ox) to begin with in order to be able to judge, by proposing an answer� whether the thing in the distance is a hors e (or an ox). The second requirement may be (1) I am grateful to David Furley� Terence Irwin, John Rist� and Michael Stokes for criticisms of earlier versions of some of the ideas.presented here. I am especially indebted to Michael Stokes for his many valuable suggestions. H ί0ɒ"ϔ _ϔ ϔ XQϔ ϔ ǿ Ǣϔ ,1H 7ϔ ŶIúϔ :'/8H ¢X2ϔ Ƞϔ 4?2ϔ Ǎϔ Π ϔ )ϔ ϔ ϔ 6ʗɡ$Jäϔ Lmϔ ɓǣ ϔ ǤƗ :ϔ 6ŷƘ̟ϔ {7ϔ ϔ ǥ nϔ !ϔ ϔ eŸϔ ϔ KȀĴϔ ϔ 8`Oåϔ Lȁϔ ΰC+nϔ ±Ȃ@ϔ AĵΔϔ ɟͿ ϔ œƙϔ cϔ H ɺɻ'[̆ ϔ Dɤθϔ ˅ʘϔ ϔ ,Jϔ ̹³9ϔ -ϔ Εƚ̡̺)ǦM Eψϔ Õ şʙɠR;/ƛϔ a°Gϔ Ρ7 ϔ |)0ɥϔ Ķ¢˦N.æϔLȃϔ÷ϔ 4ϔ ˧ϔ ˆ-ϔ ȡT ϔ ϔ Rϔ Q ǧ ϔ 8ϔ ΢&ϔ Źˇ̢ϔ ʚqHϔ +˨ ϔ ϔ ķ1nÈϔ ϔ 5211³ϔ KA ϔ ϔ µÖt ¿Ďϔ .+/: B ϔ #%ϔ <ϔ ϔ -ϔ V *Ǩ(=ɔϔ Eź/̻gŻϔ Ŕϔ ȄƜϔ ;ø'eʛ̼ϔ Sϔ o I/Ɲϔ ĸϔ 01'< żϔ bϔ 9ɕ'6̣ϔ ̽ȅ΀T7z̾ϔ ̿ ϔ Ħ= .ϔ ϔ Ģ!Ž,΁ϔ žϔ Ȇϔ ħ ̀ϔ ,ϔ ıȝ ͂ϔ %ϔ ×Ĺ£˩N¥ʜ ϔ Ȣϔ Ζ ɖǩ fϔ B ɢƞϔ 3ʝϔ ˪ ϔ ϔ ϔ -΂̓żiϔ κϔ ̈́Ȉϔ ĺPſȣͅȤ ϔ $ϔ ]ϔ ǪRɦϔ Hɗϔ [ˈϔ ʞϔ ŕ̤h͆q\ϔ ģ>Ηï̥ϔ ͇ϔ ")ǎ-Ɵ.Zϔ ϔ ͈Ơϔ ʃ;ˉϔ 8Ǐϔ ởǐ#Š x$èϔ χȞƢ̊ ϔ oϔ hα9­ #ϔ Ǒϔ ϔ ΃ '̋ϔ ˫M3ʟšϔ ȥ̦ϔ Θǚ"ϔ BH ͉5ϔ C Cǡ̧͊ ϔ ϔ Σ3͋ϔ ±ϔ η͌eϔ Oϔ Ǡ:ǒȦƣƀϔ Ŗϔ <ϔ ʠ ãʄĻƤ­, ʡ̨ϔ (ϔ 8ˬ2#Fϔ bˊ/͍ϔ | ͎ϔ ªϔ Ø ˭ˮ ͏ϔ +6H ƥ̌ǛĔƦƁϔ EH ɘͽ%ϔ 0ǫəŵ(ɧϔ ʅ9 aɚ1ȧ ϔ >Ȩ 7ϔ {ȉ(Hϔ ϔ ˋbΙ"ϔ Ƃϔ ȩÙǓļɨ*ǜȪƃϔ CH ȫ wé0ˌǬȬŢɩϔ ȭţrʆ˯(͐ ŗ0 Gϔ K ͑5ϔ J Hϔ Vϔ _Ƨfϔ }ījβ,΄:ϔ ěʖ΅Éϔ Ƅƨ.%Άϔ ʇĽ&Aʈ x %ùϔ .$%- d ĥEϔ Ĝ˰ ·°Κϔ ¦ʉȮʢˍɪǭÊϔ ΤU &ϔ ϔ ˱§ ˲rƩƅϔ Ť!ʣȯʤǮϔ 9&"H ϔ üȰϔ ǯvƪƫʊ ϔ Jȱ=Ȋýϔ ;a<]Y KZ d &*d ˎϔ Ććɛϔ ƆÚ T.Ƭnj͒ϔ |)5¶ϔ "<:&* B H ɫ̩ˏϔ þÿ*ʥϔ ťːʦSɽɜϔ Υ<5·ϊ´ŀγˑ´NJΛ˒Μϔ H /+d ͓ ϔ ɝô˳ Cƭ3ʧϔ =: [LaB 17d G<)H H Ʈ Ŧĕϔ 18ϔ ϋĀʋNVS͔M&!ʨ¸ÀĘϔ AX6M`Qc9 d F;(H H 0,d ġΈ̍&Ư̎Ìϔ JȍŁ͕ϔ Zϔ Ē¤ưŧ,ƱƇϔē ͖ϔ ł£uhŃ̏ϔ 0B ,31#=@;2:AB ®Uϔ ͗Ȳϔ l!̐ʌϔ ^«®¬ϔ ͘Ȏϔ ²k ƈϔ ͙ȏϔ Û ,Ȑ(ϔ Φ Ũȑϔ ϔ )0ϔ δ+<*Dǰϔ $ϔ !H ʍńǔ¯ϔ %ϔ ˓EvʎƉϔ DH )>'373+B Ü ȎQd͚ϔ Χȳ&̪ȴDZϔ Ýëϔ ŅƊϔ -7H " ũ˔pǝ ̜Ʋ?ϔ Řϔ JW_d - ?383($5B õöϔ Íϔ ìϔ ʩ ϔ "#̒Ƴ͛ϔ Ψ*Iʪ̫ȵDzϔ Þ Đϔ MʫPϔ Ωņ ϔ ȶϔ ßY˴DIϔ :ϔ lϔ#ʬʭOϔ _νϔ IV^d 8\3bDP452H?!"Rd ˕ϔ Ū¡'ʮ͜§à>͝%̬ dzϔ Ƌϔ *ϔ ƌ ˖Wƍϔ `ξϔ :6?!394+%5B Įϔ d!ʏ˗ ϔ a@NG)OF>Sd ƎȸŇGϔ #ʱϔ N ϔ ϔ Ȓň;ϔ ˘D-ȹ̝ʼn͠ϔ ˙ϔ Î?Ŭ˚Ǖϔ̓W<* ϔ ɬ Tϔ Gϔ Y 4˛ʐƴ ϔ ˜ϔ ˵Ƶ C2Ŋîϔ Ěŭ˝ƏȺʲǵϔ ϔ Gȓϔ ο Wϔ ϔ ΝkȻȼŮ3͡# όϔ ϔ Ĉĉ̭ ʳ¹ϔ ϔ Ϊ@ ,ϔ Ƚϔ ²+ƶ;ϔ ͢ ϔ ˶˷Ʒϔ ϔ s ϔ ϔ ˸ǖϔ Ǘϔ xÏϔ KȾB4đϔ ͣȟφϔ ¨ϔ %)Ƕϔ ϔ Ϋ@ͤϔ ϔ $âŋ+̔Ƹ&ϔ άȔȿmϔ ϔ ϔ u$ S\ϔ t)6Ήϔ Kϔ ˞ͥij¡6ϔ 2ϔ Ōʴůʵ ϔ ; ʑϔ ̕ϔ @ɭ"Ƿϔ ͦȕ ͧϔ ʁʂϔ āĂ˹ύ˺ͨɀ!ʶ̮Ċċϔ }û9ȖƹʒQʷōºϔÐÑϔ ăώ˻c˼ͩɁř1ČčÒϔ»˽ͪ[!ÁÂϔ Ŏϔ ¼&6ÃÄϔ ~İ4ʸ̖ϔ H ŰïÆϔ LAZϔ >ŏϔ !ǘϔ t ɣ Ǹϔ ɂϔ 2ͫϔ &1ϔ űΊ̗ͬNjĖϔ ͭȗϔ $ʕͮͯ ϔ ̘ϔ ɮ8̯ϔ ϔ H ƺ)ϔ ΋̰ϔ ϔ ĄąͰΌ½ęϔ ϔ πϔ ɯqϔ .ϔ >mƻϔ ?«Ų'̱Ƀǹϔ Ĭͱr#ϔ 4>503%H IJͲϔ ĝ˾ /΍ϔ Ș ʓ%ɾǞϔ ]ρϔ ~ĤƼ˟ϔ '(#d ªϔ ,șŐ=ϔ Ύ, ϔ (pƐϔ l^ɰ¬ƽȚ˥ϔ *: ϔ Fϔ őϔ $VʹɄ!ϔ PfƑϔ +3. ėϔ y¨/ͳ ϔ "ϔ -^ɱ̲Uˠˡƒϔ ! ΏϏϔ +ΐzϔ εɲ3ɅʺÓϔ έ7ƾϔ ϔ + ʻɆ$ϔ *̳ϔ D-ɇ̞Pϔ $̙ϔ "̴ ʼ-Ɉ¦Cðϔ ĭy¥ɉ ʹɳςϐϔ =*$2H ͵54ϔ Ğ#/ ϔ w !ϔ U 'ɴϔ Śiϔ ƿζ˿4ǀƓϔ śϔ w σɊʽǺϔ =[ϔ ɵ0ϔ +gd̀Ͷ ϔ Ǻ ˢWRFÔϔ YǁYIɞŜɶϑϔ +vǂʾ ]¯ ɋʿÇϔ ǃ̅' ɿʀ τϔ ǟυϔ ˣu ˀñϔ įA=ϔ ;țϔ {(ϔ )Fϔ Ǚ ϔ ğX Α©'̵Ξϔ ?.#@H 5Zϔ ŝDŽϔ ƔoɌ"ϔ AH ˤďDž̚Eϔ ɍˁͷϒ.̛̂dž͸.ϔ $ϔ Ġ¤c6Β%òϔ @kϔ ̶ϔ ǻLJ©(Bϔ Ǽʔ͹ϔ ͺȜ ϔ 9Ɏų /'̷óƕɏƖϔ ?* #ǽ/ɐ:ϔ `&>Ljjϔ ɷɑ(aɸϔ Œ˂"ϔ Γ˃ljBŞBϔ ̃̄ sϓϔ ̸g ɹŴͻFǾϔ ͼ ¾ϔ Οή˄ϔ 3 or the 11clear view'; bypreference to the rest of perception as a standard of truth. This is� I think� quite mistaken. What has been termed the 11near;1 or "clear11 _perception is simply the appearanc e that matches an expectation� no matter what the expectation. A standard example used by the ancients.to illustrate Epicurusv method of verification for expectations .ie the round and square tower (Sextus Empiricus� adv. · math. 7 .. 20ch-9; .cf Lucretius 4.353-363� Diogenes Laertius 10.34). It appears round from a distance and square from closeby. Is the perception of a square tower true or reliablej and the perception of a round tower not true or reliable? Not at all� ?S Sextus carefully explains (see also Lucretius 4.379ff). If upon seeing a round tower I form the opinion that when I will be twenty yaards from the tower I will see a square tower; and subsequently at twenty yards away I see a square tower, my opinion is proved true. It has been confirmed by a near view� which has replaced a distant and. less distinct view� but the confirmation has nothing to do with the intrinsic properties of the appearance but is due entirely to the fact that the appearance matches the e�rpectation. If I had previously seen a dark object on the horizon and had ventured the opinion that upon coming a little closer I would see a round tower� and if I had then seen ·a round; tower, my opinion would have been equally true. As Lucretius explains in connection with sight, perception does not present the llnature ·of thingsii (4.3�:5). It makes no sense to demand from perception confirmation of whether the round tower is really a round tower; what is perceived as a round tower is a round tower� and if one would know t.he underlying .nature of what. is perceived, one must go to reason� - reason . relying to be sure entirely on perception. Perception can confirm only an expectation cif what will be perceived. Displaying exactly.what is presently experience� each pe rception is as clear$ as Plutarch says (adv� Colotem 112la), as another. The p Q'3ition of the Epicurean investigator is indeed similar to that of the prisoner in Plato's cave.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Zeno of Elea: Where Space, Time, Physics, and Philosophy Converge
    Western Kentucky University TopSCHOLAR® Honors College Capstone Experience/Thesis Honors College at WKU Projects Fall 2007 Zeno of Elea: Where Space, Time, Physics, and Philosophy Converge An Everyman’s Introduction to an Unsung Hero of Philosophy William Turner Western Kentucky University Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/stu_hon_theses Part of the Other Philosophy Commons, Other Physics Commons, and the Philosophy of Science Commons Recommended Citation Turner, William, "Zeno of Elea: Where Space, Time, Physics, and Philosophy Converge An Everyman’s Introduction to an Unsung Hero of Philosophy" (2007). Honors College Capstone Experience/Thesis Projects. Paper 111. http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/stu_hon_theses/111 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by TopSCHOLAR®. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors College Capstone Experience/ Thesis Projects by an authorized administrator of TopSCHOLAR®. For more information, please contact [email protected]. P │ S─Z─T │ P Zeno of Elea: Where Space, Time, Physics, and Philosophy Converge An Everyman’s Introduction to an Unsung Hero of Philosophy Will Turner Western Kentucky University Abstract Zeno of Elea, despite being among the most important of the Pre-Socratic philosophers, is frequently overlooked by philosophers and scientists alike in modern times. Zeno of Elea’s arguments on have not only been an impetus for the most important scientific and mathematical theories in human history, his arguments still serve as a basis for modern problems and theoretical speculations. This is a study of his arguments on motion, the purpose they have served in the history of science, and modern applications of Zeno of Elea’s arguments on motion.
    [Show full text]
  • Epicurus Epicurus Was Born in February 341 BCE
    Epicurus Epicurus was born in February 341 BCE. He earned his basic education in philosophy after four years of tutoring, and at the age of 18, Epicurus served in the military for two years in Athens. After completing his education, Epicurus began teaching around the Aegean, eventually settling back in Athens. There, he purchased some land and founded a school which was given the name of ‘The Garden’, for its construction in the garden of his house. The Garden soon became a notable institute for the progress of philosophical education, and it also held the exclusivity of being the first philosophical Greek institute that allowed women to take part in learning. Epicurus strongly advocated friendship as an important root for a happy and fulfilling life, and thus, his school provided the community with the opportunity to interact and form constructive relationships. Epicurus has played an extremely vital role in the progress of science as a discipline. Epicurus was the first Greek philosopher to attempt to break free society from religious superstitions by preaching that God does not punish or reward humans, and that a man’s sole objective should be to form a self-sufficient and happy life by surrounding oneself with reliable and cherished friends. Epicurus was a strong advocate of free will. The development of a pleasant and comfortable life, in his view, was the core purpose of life, and good and bad consequences could only be evaluated on the principles of pain and pleasure. Epicurus believed that whatever serves to provide pleasure can be termed as good, and whatever leads to discomfort can be termed as bad.
    [Show full text]
  • Anaximander and the Problem of the Earth's Immobility
    Binghamton University The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB) The Society 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. And since it is impossible for it to move simultaneously in opposite directions, it necessarily stays where it is.1 The ascription of this curious view to Anaximander appears to have occasioned little uneasiness among modern commentators.
    [Show full text]
  • Parmenides B6.1–2 Without a Modal Fallacy
    Aporia vol. 21 no. 1—2011 Parmenides B6.1–2 without a Modal Fallacy MICHAEL J. HANSEN n all accounts, Parmenides makes a marvelous argument in the Way of Truth. However, there is no clear consensus among inter- Opreters about how to read it. The only noncontroversial point in interpreting the work seems to be that in it, Parmenides did something pro- found to philosophy. Despite this collective obligation to acknowledge Par- menides’ unique innovation (whatever it may be), it has become popular to read Parmenides as relying on a modal fallacy to make his argument. This would be an embarrassing mistake for such an influential work, especially given the argument’s deductive appearance. In this paper, I will outline the modal fallacy that Parmenides is accused of and argue for an interpretation that is free of the fallacy. I. The Alleged Modal Fallacy The critical fragment we must examine to decide the question is B6.1–2, in which the fallacy is supposed to occur: crhV toV levgein te noei`n t' ejoVn e!mmenai e!sti gaVr ei^nai, mhdeVn d' oujk e!otin . (Graham 214) Michael J. Hansen is a senior majoring in philosophy at Brigham Young University. He is interested in ancient philosophy, the philosophy of mind, epistemology, and metaphysics. In the fall, he will be pursuing a PhD in philosophy at the University of California–Los Angeles. This essay placed first in the 2011 David H. Yarn Philosophical Essay Contest. 2 MICHAEL J. HANSEN As usual, Parmenides’ language admits of many permissible translations for interpreters to quibble over, but this fragment is exceptionally difficult to render.
    [Show full text]
  • Lucan's Natural Questions: Landscape and Geography in the Bellum Civile Laura Zientek a Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulf
    Lucan’s Natural Questions: Landscape and Geography in the Bellum Civile Laura Zientek A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2014 Reading Committee: Catherine Connors, Chair Alain Gowing Stephen Hinds Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Classics © Copyright 2014 Laura Zientek University of Washington Abstract Lucan’s Natural Questions: Landscape and Geography in the Bellum Civile Laura Zientek Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Catherine Connors Department of Classics This dissertation is an analysis of the role of landscape and the natural world in Lucan’s Bellum Civile. I investigate digressions and excurses on mountains, rivers, and certain myths associated aetiologically with the land, and demonstrate how Stoic physics and cosmology – in particular the concepts of cosmic (dis)order, collapse, and conflagration – play a role in the way Lucan writes about the landscape in the context of a civil war poem. Building on previous analyses of the Bellum Civile that provide background on its literary context (Ahl, 1976), on Lucan’s poetic technique (Masters, 1992), and on landscape in Roman literature (Spencer, 2010), I approach Lucan’s depiction of the natural world by focusing on the mutual effect of humanity and landscape on each other. Thus, hardships posed by the land against characters like Caesar and Cato, gloomy and threatening atmospheres, and dangerous or unusual weather phenomena all have places in my study. I also explore how Lucan’s landscapes engage with the tropes of the locus amoenus or horridus (Schiesaro, 2006) and elements of the sublime (Day, 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • Epicurus and the Epicureans on Socrates and the Socratics
    chapter 8 Epicurus and the Epicureans on Socrates and the Socratics F. Javier Campos-Daroca 1 Socrates vs. Epicurus: Ancients and Moderns According to an ancient genre of philosophical historiography, Epicurus and Socrates belonged to distinct traditions or “successions” (diadochai) of philosophers. Diogenes Laertius schematizes this arrangement in the following way: Socrates is placed in the middle of the Ionian tradition, which starts with Thales and Anaximander and subsequently branches out into different schools of thought. The “Italian succession” initiated by Pherecydes and Pythagoras comes to an end with Epicurus.1 Modern views, on the other hand, stress the contrast between Socrates and Epicurus as one between two opposing “ideal types” of philosopher, especially in their ways of teaching and claims about the good life.2 Both ancients and moderns appear to agree on the convenience of keeping Socrates and Epicurus apart, this difference being considered a fundamental lineament of ancient philosophy. As for the ancients, however, we know that other arrangements of philosophical traditions, ones that allowed certain connections between Epicureanism and Socratism, circulated in Hellenistic times.3 Modern outlooks on the issue are also becoming more nuanced. 1 DL 1.13 (Dorandi 2013). An overview of ancient genres of philosophical history can be seen in Mansfeld 1999, 16–25. On Diogenes’ scheme of successions and other late antique versions of it, see Kienle 1961, 3–39. 2 According to Riley 1980, 56, “there was a fundamental difference of opinion concerning the role of the philosopher and his behavior towards his students.” In Riley’s view, “Epicurean criticism was concerned mainly with philosophical style,” not with doctrines (which would explain why Plato was not as heavily attacked as Socrates).
    [Show full text]
  • Roman Life in Cyrenaica in the Fourth Century As Shown in the Letters of Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais
    920 T3ee H. C. Thory Roman Life in Cyrenaica in the Fourth Century as Shown in the Letters of 5y nesius, , Si shop of Ptolernais ROMAN LIFE IN CYRENAICA IN THE FOURTH CENTURY AS SHOWN IN THE LETTERS OF SYNESIUS, BISHOP OF PTOLEMAIS BY t HANS CHRISTIAN THORY THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS WITH HONORS IN CLASSICS COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 1920 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS June 7 20 , 19* THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Chrifti^„.T^ i2[ H^.s.v t : , , ROMAN LIFE IN CYRENAICA IN THE FOURTH CENTURY ENE Af*111rvi'T TLEDT?rt A? SHOWN IN THE LETTERS OF SYNESIUS, BISHOP OF PTQLEMAIS IS APPROVED BY ME AS FULFILLING THIS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF ^3 Instructor in Charge Approved HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF ,£M?STCS. CONTENTS Page I. Cyrenaica: the Country and its Hiatory 1 II. The Barbarian Invasions.. 5 III. Government: Military and Civil 8 IV. The Church 35 V. Organization of Society 34 VI. Agriculture Country Life 37 vii, Glimpses of City Life the Cities 46 VIII. Commerce Travel — Communication 48 IX. Language — • Education Literature Philosophy Science Art 57 X. Position of Women Types of Men 68 Bibliography 71 ********** 1 ROMAN LIFE IN CYRENAICA IN THE FOURTH CENTURY AS SHOWN IN THE LETTERS OF SYNESIUS, BISHOP OF PT0LEMAI8 I CYRENAICA: THE COUNTRY AND ITS HISTORY The Roman province of Cyrenaioa occupied the region now called Barca, in the northeastern part of Tripoli, extending eaet from the Greater Syrtis a distance of about 20C miles, and south from the Mediterranean Sea a distance of 70 to 80 miles.
    [Show full text]
  • I Were Zeno's Arguments a Reply to Attacks Upon Parmenides?
    Were Zeno's a Arguments Reply To Attacks upon Parmenides? N. B. BOOTH NE of the mysteries about Zeno of Elea's arguments is that, whereas learn from all the available that Zeno was we evidence particularly concerned to defend the One of Parmenides 1, yet we find him, in his arguments about plurality, doing all that he can to refute the "ones" of a plurality.2 This would be reasonable if we could be sure that his arguments were valid only against the "ones" of a plurality, not against Parmenides's One; but it is by no means certain that this is true, as we shall see in the course of my discussion. The difficulty was already felt by the ancient commentators 3, and perhaps by Plato as well 4 ; it may be a "pseudo-problem", but if so, it is a pseudo-problem of some antiquity. One suggested solution is to the effect that, before Zeno produced his 5 arguments, certain critics had attacked Parmenides's One with much the same arguments as Zeno later used to attack the "ones" of the pluralists. The two main sources of evidence 6 for this suggestion are a passage in Plato's Parmenides ( i 2 8 c), and Zeno's arguments themselves ' ; a third is possibly to be found in the arguments of Parmenides's other pupil, Melissus.8 There is, regrettably, no definite statement on the subject in any of our authorities. In the passage from the Parmenides ( i 2 8 c), Plato makes the character "Zeno" apologize for the shortcomings of his book about plurality: "It I is really an attempt to support Parmenides's argument against those who try to redicule his theory that 'One is', saying that, if 'One is', then many absurd and inconsistent conclusions follow.
    [Show full text]
  • The Natural Philosophers
    The Natural Philosophers For us, the most interesting part is actually not what solutions these earliest philosophers arrived at, but The earliest Greek philosophers are sometimes which questions they asked and what type of answer called natural philosophers because they were mainly they were looking for. We are more interested in how concerned with the natural world and its processes. they thought than in exactly what they thought. We have already asked ourselves where everything We know that they posed questions relating to the comes from. Nowadays a lot of people imagine that at transformations they could observe in the physical some time something must have come from nothing. This world. They were looking for the underlying laws of idea was not so widespread among the Greeks. For one nature. They wanted to understand what was happening reason or another, they assumed that “something” had around them without having to turn to the ancient always existed. myths. And most important, they wanted to understand How everything could come from nothing was the actual processes by studying nature itself. This was therefore not the all-important question. On the other quite different from explaining thunder and lightning or hand the Greeks marveled at how live fish could come winter and spring by telling stories about the gods. from water, and huge trees and brilliantly colored So philosophy gradually liberated itself from flowers could come from the dead earth. Not to mention religion. We could say that the natural philosophers took how a baby could come from its mother’s womb! the first step in the direction of scientific reasoning, The philosophers observed with their own eyes thereby becoming the precursors of what was to become that nature was in a constant state of transformation.
    [Show full text]
  • Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece
    Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Ancient Greek Philosophy but didn’t Know Who to Ask Edited by Patricia F. O’Grady MEET THE PHILOSOPHERS OF ANCIENT GREECE Dedicated to the memory of Panagiotis, a humble man, who found pleasure when reading about the philosophers of Ancient Greece Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece Everything you always wanted to know about Ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask Edited by PATRICIA F. O’GRADY Flinders University of South Australia © Patricia F. O’Grady 2005 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Patricia F. O’Grady has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identi.ed as the editor of this work. Published by Ashgate Publishing Limited Ashgate Publishing Company Wey Court East Suite 420 Union Road 101 Cherry Street Farnham Burlington Surrey, GU9 7PT VT 05401-4405 England USA Ashgate website: http://www.ashgate.com British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Meet the philosophers of ancient Greece: everything you always wanted to know about ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask 1. Philosophy, Ancient 2. Philosophers – Greece 3. Greece – Intellectual life – To 146 B.C. I. O’Grady, Patricia F. 180 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Meet the philosophers of ancient Greece: everything you always wanted to know about ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask / Patricia F.
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of Cosmos in Milesian Philosophy
    The Concept of Cosmos in Milesian Philosophy Viivi Lähteenoja 19 July 2017 Tiedekunta/Osasto – Fakultet/Sektion – Laitos – Institution – Department Faculty Humanistinen tiedekunta Filosofian, historian, kulttuurin ja taiteiden tutkimuksen laitos Tekijä – Författare – Author Viivi Esteri Lähteenoja Työn nimi – Arbetets titel – Title The Concept of Cosmos in Milesian Philosophy Oppiaine – Läroämne – Subject Teoreettinen filosofia Työn laji – Arbetets art – Aika – Datum – Month and Sivumäärä– Sidoantal – Number of pages Level year Pro gradu -tutkielma 19 heinäkuuta 2017 83 Tiivistelmä – Referat – Abstract Tämä tutkielma käsittelee kreikan sanan kosmos käyttöä aikaisessa esisokraattisessa filosofiassa, eli miletoslaisten Thaleen, Anaksimandroksen, sekä Anaksimeneen ajattelussa. Tutkielman tavoite on haastaa nykyään yleinen ajatus siitä, että miletoslaiset olisivat olleet puhtaita luonnonfilosofeja, tutkimalla moniselitteisen kosmos-sanan käyttöä. Tämä saavutetaan kokoamalla kaikki näitä ajattelijoita koskevat tekstit, joissa kyseinen sana esiintyy. Ensin tekstit käännetään alkukielestä ja ne analysoidaan filologisesti. Filologisten havaintojen perusteella tekstit asetetaan seuraavaksi niiden filosofiseen kontekstiin, jolloin voidaan osallistua kirjallisuudessa käytävään keskusteluun näiden ajattelijoiden kokonaisfilosofiasta. Lopuksi esitetään vielä excursus liittyen kahteen muuhun keskeiseen esisokraattiseen termiin, phusis ja arkhê. Taustalla tässä työtavassa on ajatus siitä, että esisokraattisen filosofian tutkimuksessa on vuosisatojen
    [Show full text]
  • “What Is Hedonism?” Pain and Pleasure in Classical Antiquity, Ed
    Katja Maria Vogt, katjavogt.com, Columbia University !1 What is Hedonism? For: Pain and Pleasure in Classical Antiquity, ed. William Harris What is Hedonism?1 1. Introduction When philosophers use the term hedonism, they usually imply the pursuit of something lowly, as if the best a human being can aim for was like the life of grazing cattle.2 And yet there are philosophers who endorse hedonism. To them, it seems that hedonists must not be destined for a lowly life at all. Instead, they argue for a life of reasoning and friendship.3 Given these discrepancies, what then is hedonism?4 This question bears, I propose, not only on the reconstruction of ancient views that self-identify as hedonist. More generally, it bears on how we understand ancient ethics. Compared to modern moral philosophy, the ancients are greatly—some may say, excessively—interested in pleasure and pain. As will emerge, I think that ancient ethics benefitted from the presence of hedonism as a contender. In response to hedonism, Plato and Aristotle seem to get 1 I am grateful to William Harris and Ursula Poole for inviting me to present at the conference that lead up to this publication, and to all participants for interesting comments and discussions. Giulia Bonasio, Sam McVane, and Isabel Kaeslin provided helpful feedback on a draft. Jens Haas offered invaluable feedback, both for the version that I presented at the conference and for the paper. 2 That hedonism is often understood as advocating a life like that of grazing cattle is Plato’s concluding remark in the Philebus.
    [Show full text]