101-120 of 304 Results  for:

Clear all

Article

Diotima  

A. W. Price

Actual or fictitious priestess of *Mantinea, (c.440 bce), from whom *Socrates pretends to have learnt his theory of love, defining its goal as generative in *Plato (1)'s Symposium. Other references derive from this.

Article

D. O'Meara

The nominal author (otherwise unknown) of a *Neopythagorean work On Piety and one On *Kingship which defines the qualities of the ideal king as imitator of God and embodiment of law. These works have been variously dated between the 3rd cent. bce and the 2nd cent. ce.

Article

C. C. W. Taylor

Dissoi logoi (lit. ‘Double Arguments’, i.e. ‘Arguments For and Against’), a short sophistic work of unknown authorship, written in Doric dialect (see Greek language) some time after 400 bce. It consists mainly of arguments for and against various evaluative theses, with frequent appeals to relativity, and also discusses the teachability of virtue.

Article

Echecrates of Phlius (4th cent. bce) is the person to whom *Phaedo describes the last day of Socrates' life in *Plato (1)'s Phaedo. Late sources describe him as one of several Phliasians attached to the Pythagorean movement in *Magna Graecia (cf. e.g. Cicero (Marcus Tullius)Fin.

Article

John Dillon

An approach to philosophy which consists in the selection and amalgamation of elements of different systems of thought. The term has been much misused in relation to ancient philosophy, however, little account being taken of the historical perspectives of the individuals concerned. Traditionally it is seen as beginning in the 2nd cent. bce, coinciding with a general decline in the originality of Greek thought. Opposition between the major schools of philosophy tended to give way, in the minds of certain leading figures, to a recognition of the real similarities between them. The Academic *Antiochus (11) of Ascalon, for example, held that the doctrines of the Old *Academy, the Peripatos, and the Stoa (see peripatetic school; stoicism) were in essence indistinguishable, while, on the Stoic side, *Panaetius and *Posidonius (2) incorporate elements of both Platonism and Aristotelianism into their teaching. *Cicero and the younger Seneca (see annaeus seneca (2), l.

Article

Martha C. Nussbaum and Paul Cartledge

It is a commonplace that the Greek philosophers had no economic theory. Three reasons are advanced for this absence: (1) the merely embryonic existence of the relevant institutions, especially the market; (2) upper-class disdain for personal involvement in *trade and exchange; (3) the priority assigned to ethical and political concerns over technical considerations of exchange and accumulation. While each of these claims contains some truth, the third assumes a modern conception of the autonomy of economics against which ancient theory may make a pertinent challenge.

*Plato (1)'s discussion of the market is sketchy. The Republic describes the creation of a market in the ‘first city’; *money will be used for internal exchange, and barter for foreign trade. In the Ideal City the lowest class, ruled by bodily appetites, is also called the moneymaking class. The ideal city of Laws 5 will have no money, and strict lower and upper limits on amount of ownership. The market legislation of bks. 8 and 11 permits money, but most transacting is done by aliens; again, the state fixes strict limits to acquisition and ownership.

Article

D. O'Meara

Ecphantus, a 4th-cent. bce Pythagorean from Syracuse (or Croton; Iambl. VP 267), held that indivisible bodies (monads), moved by a divine power referred to as ‘mind’ and ‘soul’, constitute the world, which is spherical and governed by providence. A Neopythagorean treatise On Kingship is falsely attributed to him; it exalts *kingship as naturally superior, the mediator between the gods and man, an essential link in a divinely organized universe. This work, variously dated between the 3rd cent. bce and the early 3rd cent. ce, shows Jewish and/or Gnostic influence (see gnosticism, pythagoras, neopythagoreanism, kingship).

Article

Frederick Arthur George Beck and Rosalind Thomas

Greek ideas of education (paideia), whether theoretical or practical, encompassed upbringing and cultural training in the widest sense, not merely schooling and formal education. The poets were regarded as the educators of their society, particularly in the Archaic period, but also well into the classical, when *Plato (1) could attack *Homer's status as educator of Greece (e.g. Resp. 606e, and generally, bks. 2, 3, 10; cf. Xen. Symp. 4. 6 for the conventional view). Much education would have taken place in an aristocratic milieu informally through institutions like the *symposium (as in the poetry of *Theognis (1)) or *festivals (cf. the children reciting *Solon's poetry at the *Apaturia, Pl. Ti. 21b), backed up by the old assumption that the *aristocracy possessed inherited, not instructed, excellence. Important educational functions were seen by some in the relationship of a boy and an older lover (see homosexuality); or in the very institutions of the city-state (*polis), the city festivals and rituals (e.

Article

J. V. Muir

There is very little reliable evidence bearing upon formal education in the early period. Education was then certainly centred on the family and was probably based upon apprenticeship supervised by the father—in poorer homes an apprenticeship to agriculture or trade, in more aristocratic circles to military service and public life (what later became known as the tirocinium militiae and the tirocinium fori). The authority of the father, legalized as *patria potestas, was absolute and could only in theory be questioned by the censors. The Roman mother had a more restricted, domestic role but she too was traditionally expected to take a personal, central responsibility and to set a strong moral example (see motherhood, Roman). It is not certain when reading and writing became a serious part of Roman education: the 7th-cent. bce ivory writing-tablet with inscribed alphabet found at Marsiliana d'Albegna and 6th-cent. bucchero (pottery) models of wooden writing-tablets (tabulae ansatae) from Etruria may imply that *literacy was then already making some headway.

Article

John Palmer

Parmenides of Elea, Zeno of Elea, and Melissus of Samos are often considered as a group within Presocratic philosophy because of the supposed similarity of their doctrines. Some ancient reports, drawing on Plato (Soph. 242d), identify Xenophanes of Colophon as their forebear. Although these thinkers were variously associated throughout antiquity, the notion that Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus comprised a distinct school of thought is more a historiographic invention than a historical reality, given that there were no actual philosophical schools in antiquity prior to the founding of Plato's Academy. In modern times, advocacy of strict monism and the concomitant denial of all change and radical denigration of the evidence of the senses have been regarded as the characteristic doctrines of the Eleatic school. Only Melissus, however, indisputably propounded these views. It has become increasingly controversial whether Parmenides did so and whether Zeno designed his ingenious paradoxes to support them. Although the notion of an Eleatic School is historically unreliable, Parmenides’ profoundly original metaphysical poem should nevertheless be seen as engendering a broader trend of Eleatic-style ontology in works as diverse as Gorgias's On Nature or On What Is Not and the dialectical exercise in Plato's Parmenides.

Article

Christopher Rowe

Philosophical school reportedly founded by *Phaedon, is said shortly to have become, or merged with, the school of *Eretria (Diog. Laert. 1. 18–19; 2. 85, 105, 126). (Not the same as the *Eleatic school.)CJRChristopher J.

Article

Angelos Chaniotis

Although generated by neurobiological processes, emotions (pathe, affectus) also consist in a process of appraisal and individual judgement, which depends on social and cultural norms and individual proclivities. As they heavily influence social relations and the behaviour of individuals and groups, emotions are socially relevant and, consequently, subject to scrutiny, judgement, and normative intervention. They fulfil social functions and follow social rules. Hence, they are potentially subject to change and are shaped by the society in which they operate. Although it can be argued that emotions are a universal phenomenon, they do have a history and are a very important subject of historical research. This applies both to emotions closely connected with socio-cultural norms (e.g. friendship, pity, honour, shame, pride) and to ‘basic emotions’ (e.g. fear, hope, joy, grief, disgust, despair, love, lust, envy).

In Classics, the study of emotions is a multidisciplinary task that profits from the findings of the neurosciences, exploits the evidence in a large variety of sources, and takes into consideration diverse parameters (aesthetic, social, and cultural). Classicists and ancient historians can study filtered representations of and reflections on emotions as well as the parameters which explain why a feeling is represented in a particular manner in ancient texts and images. A variety of factors influence the manifestation of emotions: the display of emotions as a persuasion strategy (e.g. in oratory, petitions, prayers); dramatizations and aesthetics; the influence of norms, especially of norms that aimed at restraining emotional display; gender roles; the character of the audience; linguistic usage. Although Greek and Latin terms designating emotions usually correspond to modern categories, the overlap varies, and there are nuances which can be understood only if the cultural context and the language of emotion is taken into consideration.

Article

A philosopher from *Acragas in Sicily. Most details of his life are uncertain. Book 8 of *Diogenes (6) Laertius provides the largest selection of legends. Much of our biographical information (especially the manner of his death and claims that he was a doctor and prophet and considered himself a god) may have been extrapolated from his poetry. There is no reason to doubt his aristocratic background, that his family participated in the *Olympian Games, that he was involved in political life, or that he was active in both the religious and the philosophical spheres. He apparently travelled to mainland Greece to recite at the Olympian Games and visited *Thurii soon after its foundation in 443 bce. Pythagoreanism was clearly a philosophical inspiration. Equally important was *Parmenides, whose thought shaped the basic ideas underlying Empedocles' philosophy. There is no evidence that he was familiar with the work of *Zeno (1), *Melissus, or the atomists; he probably knew the work of *Anaxagoras, certainly that of *Xenophanes.

Article

Epictetus (mid-1st to 2nd cent. ce), Stoic philosopher from Hierapolis in Phrygia; in early life a slave of *Epaphroditus (1) in Rome. Eventually freed by his master, he studied with *Musonius Rufus. Epictetus taught in Rome until *Domitian banished the philosophers in ce 89. He set up a school at *Nicopolis (3) in Epirus, where his reputation attracted a following which included many upper-class Romans. *Arrian published the oral teachings (Discourses, Διατριβαί) of Epictetus. Four books of these survive, along with a summary of key teachings known as the Manual (Ἐγχειρίδιον). These writings and his personal reputation made an impact on the emperor Marcus *Aurelius; the Manual has been an important inspirational book in both ancient and modern times.Epictetus' teaching took two forms. He taught basic works of *Stoicism, especially those of *Chrysippus, and shows considerable familiarity with technical matters.

Article

David John Furley and D. Sedley

A moral and natural philosopher, b. *Samos, 341 bce; d. Athens, 270 bce. His father Neocles and mother Chaerestrate, Athenians of the deme Gargettus, emigrated to the Athenian *cleruchy in Samos. As a boy he was taught by a Platonist, Pamphilus. He served as an *ephebe in Athens, when *Xenocrates (1) was head of the *Academy and *Aristotle was in *Chalcis; the playwright *Menander (1) was in the same class of the ephebate as Epicurus. He rejoined his family, who had then settled on the Asian mainland at Colophon. At this time or earlier he studied under *Nausiphanes, from whom he learnt about the *atomist philosophy of *Democritus. At 32 he moved to *Mytilene in Lesbos, then to *Lampsacus on the Hellespont; at both places he set up a school and began to acquire pupils and loyal friends.

Article

William David Ross

School of Eretria (philosophy), founded by *Menedemus (1) as a continuation of the school of Elis (see elis, school of), is mentioned by Diog. Laert. 1. 17–19, 2. 105, 126; Strabo 9. 393; Cic. Acad. 2. 129. Menedemus had a large following, but only one follower, Ctesibius, is known by name. The last trace of the school is in the title of a work of the Stoic *Sphaerus against it.

Article

ethics  

Sarah Broadie

‘Ethicals’ or τὰ ἠθικά (‘moralia’) was the standard label from Aristotle onwards for treatises on ethics. Aristotle also uses the adjective to describe forensic and political speeches, and literary works (e.g. tragedy, and the Odyssey by contrast with the Iliad), as expressive of moral character. Using it as a title of treatises reflects a deliberate determination, again consolidated by Aristotle, to distinguish types of inquiry (‘ethical’ versus ‘physical’, ‘logical’ and so on) in terms of their subject-matter, on the assumption that different subject-matters not only rest on different first principles but call for different methods and different standards of accuracy and completeness. The root word ἦθος, which occurs from Hesiod and Homer onwards, means, in the plural, ‘haunts’ or ‘customary abodes’ (e.g. of animals) and ‘manners’ or ‘customs’ (mores); in the singular, ‘disposition’, ‘character’, or ‘characteristic way of behaving’. Importantly, ἤθη (like mores) are only ever ascribed to sentient beings (thus it is a narrower concept than the modern philosopher's ‘dispositional properties’). It is implied that the subject desires to behave in the specific ‘way’, but also that once a particular passage of behaviour is traced to an ἦθος, no further explanation is forthcoming.

Article

D. Sedley

Eubulides of *Miletus, mid-4th cent. bce, dialectician associated with the *Megarian school. He was an outspoken critic of *Aristotle, a teacher of *Demosthenes (2), and the reputed author of several classic puzzles. Some of these—the Sorites (‘How many grains make a heap?’), the Liar Paradox (‘Is “I am lying” simultaneously true and false?’), and the Horned Argument (‘Have you lost your horns?’)—raise problems for the simple true/false dichotomy. Others, such as the Veiled Man, seem epistemological.

Article

Euclides (1) of *Megara (c. 450–380 bce), associate of *Socrates and founder of the *Megarian school. He was present at the death of Socrates and thereafter housed Plato and other members of the circle. His pupils and successors included *Eubulides and *Stilpon, both known for their propounding of logical paradoxes, although the latter was also a significant moral philosopher. *Cicero puts him in the tradition of *Eleatic monism, and this may be connected with the report that he held the good to be one thing, having no opposite but named in many ways—e.g. as God, wisdom (φρόνησις), intelligence (νοῦς). His positive doctrines are otherwise unknown, but his practice of attacking the conclusion and not the premisses of an opponent's argument is attested and puts him in the ‘eristic’ tradition which dates from late in the 5th cent., rather than in that of the Eleatics or (at his best) Socrates.

Article

Sarah Broadie

An approach to ethics that focuses primarily on eudaimonia (variously translated ‘happiness’, ‘flourishing’, ‘well being’, and generally understood as the highest human good). For eudaimonists the central questions are first ‘What is eudaimonia?’, and next, having established that it is F (e.g. virtue, or pleasure), ‘What is F?’ Ancient Greek ethical thinkers were eudaimonistic in this broad sense. The fundamental contrast is with a generally modern perspective for which the primary problem is morally right action and its determination. Classifying a theory as ‘eudaimonist’ makes a formal claim, leaving open the theory's substantial specification of eudaimonia. Hedonist philosophers who equate eudaimonia with pleasure, and aretaic ones who identify it as virtue or some variant, are equally eudaimonists. Still, ‘eudaimonism’ is sometimes unfortunately used as if its very meaning picks out the aretaic sort of theory (possibly because this is felt to be philosophically more satisfactory than hedonistic rivals.) ‘Eudaimonism’ is also occasionally used to invoke the idea that one's own eudaimonia is the supreme goal of one's action.