Cynics. One of the most famous philosophical schools of antiquity is the school of cynics, or, in Latin transcription, cynics. This school got its name from the name of the area not far from Athens - Kinosarga, where this school was located, although later the Cynic philosophers themselves did not refuse another etymology, from the word kuon - a dog, and therefore the Cynics were often called "dog philosophers". The founder of this school was Antisthenes (c. 444-368), and it is in him that we find the theoretical justification for the Cynic way of life, and Diogenes from Sinope practically realized the plans of his teacher. Antisthenes, being a faithful student of Socrates, followed him in arguing that philosophy as speculation and reasoning about nature is not needed, but is needed as a way and means of achieving the good of life, a way of achieving happiness. He developed another position of Socrates - that knowledge should be expressed in concepts. Expressing knowledge in terms, we express it, as a rule, in general terms.
Cynic comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to abandon all general concepts, from the generally accepted norms of life and you need to strive only to follow those concepts that are in your own soul. We see such a way of life in Diogenes of Sinop. This is an extraordinary personality. The concepts of health, wealth, i.e. concepts common to Diogenes did not exist, and therefore, when Diogenes was building a house and the builders did not meet the deadline, Diogenes said that he could do without a house and settled in a barrel. The Athenians accepted his challenge, and when some boy broke his clay barrel, the Athenians dragged another for Diogenes. Another case is described: when Diogenes saw a boy, drinking water from the palm of his hand, he said that the boy passed him by in the simplicity of life, and threw away his clay cup.
Diogenes walked around the city with a torch during the day, looking for people. To the question "Are there many people in the bathhouse?" - answered: “There is no one”, and when they asked: “Is the bathhouse full of people?” replied: "Full." When he was taken prisoner and he was sold, to the question of what he could do, Diogenes answered: “To rule over people,” and asked the herald to announce if anyone wanted to buy a master? When people were indignant, he said: "If you get yourself a cook or a doctor, you obey him, therefore you should also obey the philosopher." Also known are Diogenes' answers to Zeno's argument about the non-existence of movement (Diogenes just got up and began to walk) and to Plato's definition of man as a two animal without feathers (the next day Diogenes brought a plucked rooster and said: "Here's a Platonic man for you"). This is most likely a legend, since Plato does not have this definition, although the same legend adds that Plato later added to his definition: "And with wide nails." Diogenes also said that only the gods need nothing. Therefore, if a person wants to be like the gods, he should also strive to get by with the minimum.
School of Epicurus. Epicurus was born in 341 BC. on the island of Samos. He died in 270. In 306 he moved to Athens and bought a garden on the outskirts. In the garden he founded his own school, which is often called the Garden. Epicurus wrote about 300 books. Among them - "On Nature", "On Atoms and Emptiness", "On the Way of Life". Later, the philosophy of Epicurus found its continuation in the teachings of the Roman philosopher Titus Lucretius Cara, in his main book, On the Nature of Things.
Epicurus considered the purpose of philosophy to show the way to happiness for man. In the theory of knowledge, Epicurus was a sensualist, believing that the criterion of truth is sensation, and the mind is completely dependent on sensation. Feelings give us a true picture of the world, they cannot be wrong. The mind that judges them is mistaken. Concepts arise from repeated sensations. These concepts are also true. Thoughts about concepts can be erroneous.
Epicurus said that in his philosophy he seeks to free people from three types of fear: fear of heavenly phenomena, fear of the gods and fear of death. Epicurus was a materialist, he tried to prove that all processes occurring in the world have a causal mechanism. There is nothing supernatural, and since there are no substances other than material, the causes can also be material. If the cause is found, then Epicurus considers his task completed. Having learned the natural cause of the phenomenon, a person begins to overcome the fear of this phenomenon.
Epicurus believes that bodies are made up of atoms that are in constant motion. All changes in bodies occur due to the movement of atoms. The number of atoms is infinite, so the universe is infinite. There are an infinite number of universes. Between these worlds are the gods. Gods do not exist in our world, but between worlds, and therefore our world is not affected. Since the gods do not affect our world, us, then feedback does not exist. Any worship of the gods is meaningless, the gods are completely blessed, therefore the fear of the gods is removed by Epicurus.
To save a person from the fear of death, Epicurus develops the ethical part of his philosophical system. There is no need to be afraid of death, because life and death never touch. When there is life, there is no death; when there is death, there is no more life. We fear death - something we can never know. It is pointless. There is no need to be afraid of death, since the soul consists of atoms, and with death our material body disintegrates into atoms, and the soul also disintegrates. The soul is mortal and there is no afterlife. There is no need to be afraid of death, just as one should be afraid of something that does not exist. Therefore, the meaning and purpose of life is in life itself. Epicurus finds this meaning of life in avoiding suffering, in getting pleasure.
Epicurus seeks freedom from the suffering of the body and from the turmoil of the soul. This is true pleasure. This is achieved by philosophy, so it is never too late to engage in philosophy. But we must look not for temporary pleasures: in food, wine, in other bodily pleasures - they will either end soon, or they can turn into their opposite, such as overeating. Bodily pleasures are limited and impermanent. Therefore, spiritual pleasures, spiritual peace are higher than bodily ones, since spiritual peace can be permanent. The spiritual and the mental (Epicurus does not distinguish between them) are higher than the corporeal because it includes not only the present (as corporeal), but also the past and the future. Being stronger and higher, the spirit can also affect the bodily state, i.e. bodily suffering can be soothed by the spirit and even transferred to the category of pleasures.
It is impossible to live pleasantly without living reasonably, moderately and justly. In order to achieve pleasure, it is necessary to get rid of suffering and passions. The ideal of the epicurean sage is a man who can conquer the passions of his soul.
Above the entrance to the Epicurus Garden hung the inscription: “Guest, you will feel good here. Here pleasure - highest good". And when someone entered the garden of Epicurus, becoming interested in a sign, this guest was served barley groats and water as a treat. This is true epicureanism. A person who has conquered passions in himself becomes independent of passions. Such a person becomes blissful, acquires a state when all passions are removed. This condition is called ataraxia, i.e. a state of freedom from affects and passions.
ancient stoicism. The founder of the school is Zenon of Kitia. Born in the city of Kitia on about. Crete in 336/3 B.C. Died 262/4 B.C. In his youth he was engaged in trade, sailed on ships. Once from Phenicia, his ship sailed with cargo, crashed, Zenon managed to escape. He ended up in Athens. Going into a bookstore, I bought a book by Xenophon "Socratic Conversations" and asked the seller where one could find a man like Socrates? At that moment, a famous philosopher, a representative of the cynical school of Crates, passed by a bookstore. The seller pointed to him. Zeno went after Crates and subsequently thanked fate for the shipwreck. He studied with Crates, but then parted ways with him.
Other representatives of the Ancient Stoa are Cleanthes and Chrysippus. The Stoics argued that philosophy consists of logic, physics and ethics. Logic is the study of the word (from the word "logos" - the word). The Stoics developed both the art of definition, and rhetoric, and syllogistics, but most of all they paid attention to grammar and the doctrine of signs, i.e. semiotics. In epistemology, the Stoics were also pure sensualists. They believed that all our knowledge occurs through the senses. Man, as a child, has a soul like a pure papyrus, on which knowledge is subsequently recorded through sensations. On the basis of sensations, representations are formed, among them those that are repeated are distinguished, thus, concepts are formed. They don't exist in the objective world. These concepts are only signs of material things. A concept is the name of an object and does not really exist.
The world is knowable, and true knowledge is possible. The criterion of true cognition is grasping representation.
Unlike the Epicureans, the Stoics believed that the world was one and the same. there is no void. The whole world is permeated by substance - pneuma, which unites the world, gives it a vital beginning, is the conductor and bearer of fate, or reason - that which is the driving cause and purpose of the development of this world. If for the Epicureans the world is random and depends on the chaotic movement of atoms, there is no goal of development, then for the Stoics the world develops expediently. Pneuma is a divine spirit, but it is material.
There is a guiding principle in the world, which is both the cause and the goal of the movement of the world. Therefore, a fate is at work in the world that cannot be avoided. Everything in the world takes place according to a causal system, there is no freedom, no chance, there is a complete and all-pervading providence. The world is developing towards a certain goal, which is embedded in the divine material spirit. The Stoics considered the material principle the only and sufficient source of this world. This spiritual principle is rational, and the goal of philosophy and logic is to comprehend this rational principle.
A stoic sage is a person who has comprehended the meaning, the nature of providence, fate, which rules the world. How should a person behave in a world where fate rules? Does man have freedom and free will? Yes, man has a mind. And therefore, a person can only cognize the logos, but not influence it, he can be free in the sense that he subordinates himself to Fate. Fate leads any person, the difference between a wise man and a fool is that the fate of the smart one leads, and the stupid one drags. Freedom is a recognized and realized necessity. The Stoic sage must completely get rid of all passions, passions must not have a home in a person. To do this, you need to live in accordance with reason, nature. The Stoic ideal of life without passion is apathy.
school of skepticism. The founder of ancient skepticism is traditionally considered the philosopher Pyrrho. A representative of late ancient skepticism is the philosopher and physician Sextus Empiricus, who lived in the 2nd century BC. after R.Kh.
Ancient skepticism, like all Hellenistic philosophy, posed, above all, ethical questions, considering the main solution to the problem of how to live in this world, how to achieve happy life. As Sextus Empiricus pointed out, the essence of skeptical philosophy boils down to the following: “The skeptical ability is that which opposes in any possible way the phenomenon to the conceivable, hence, due to the equivalence in opposite things and speeches, we come first to refraining from judgment, and then to equanimity.” At first, skeptics try to consider all phenomena and everything conceivable, find out that these phenomena and concepts can be perceived. in a different way, including opposite ones, prove that in this way everyone will contradict each other, so that one judgment will balance the other judgment. Due to the equivalence of judgments in opposite things and speeches, the skeptic decides to refrain from judging anything, and then comes to equanimity - ataraxia, i.e. to what the Stoics were looking for. And each of these stages was carefully developed by skeptics. Refraining from judgment is also called the term "epoch".
So the skeptic's job is to pit everything against each other, in any way possible. Therefore, the skeptic opposes everything: the phenomenon - the phenomenon, the phenomenon - the conceivable, the conceivable - the conceivable.
The founder of the school, Pyrrho, sought to confirm the conclusions of his philosophy with his life. Thanks to Diogenes Laertes, we know several famous stories from his life. Pyrrho did not move away from anything, did not shun anything, did not avoid any danger, whether it be a cart, a pile or a dog, without being exposed to a sense of danger in anything; he was saved by his friends who followed him. Further, Diogenes reports that at first Pyrrho was engaged in painting, a picture written rather mediocre has been preserved. He lived in seclusion, rarely appearing even at home. The inhabitants of Elis respected him for his intelligence and elected him high priest. More than once he left the house without saying anything to anyone, and wandered around with anyone. One day his friend Anaxarchus fell into a swamp, Pyrrho passed by without shaking his hand. Everyone scolded him, but Anaxarchus praised him. He lived with his sister, a midwife, carried chickens and piglets to the market to sell.
A famous case is mentioned by Diogenes Laertes: when Pyrrho was sailing on a ship and, together with his companions, got into a storm, everyone began to panic, only Pyrrho, pointing to the ship’s pig, which serenely slurped from its trough, said that this is how the true philosopher.
The philosophy of ancient skepticism existed for quite a long time and was the most influential trend in philosophy for many, many centuries - from the 4th century. BC according to III-IV centuries. after R.Kh. According to tradition, the founder of ancient skepticism is the philosopher Pyrrho, together with his student Timon. In the future, the skepticism of the Pyrrhonian type fades somewhat, and the so-called academic skepticism appears in the Platonic Academy with such representatives as Carneades and Arcesilaus - this is the 2nd century BC. BC Pyrrhonian skepticism (what later became known as Pyrrhonism) is revived by Aenesidemus and Agrippa (the works of these philosophers have not survived to this day). A representative of late ancient skepticism is the philosopher and physician Sextus Empiricus, who lived in the 2nd century BC. after R.Kh. In the III-IV centuries. the school still exists, and elements of skepticism can be found in the physician Galen.
A few words about the life of the founder of ancient skepticism - Pyrrho. He was born in Elis in 360 B.C. and lived for 90 years. Pyrrho belongs to those philosophers who did not write philosophical treatises, like Socrates, showing with his life the philosophy that he developed. We know about him from the book of Diogenes Laertes. The chapter on Pyrrho in it is the main source of information about Pyrrhonism. From it we learn that he refrained from any judgment, i.e. he had doubts about the knowability of the world. And Pyrrho, being a consistent philosopher, strove throughout his life to be a supporter of this doctrine. As Diogenes Laertes points out, Pyrrho did not move away from anything, shunned nothing, did not avoid any danger, whether it be a cart, a pile or a dog, without being exposed to a sense of danger in anything; he was saved by his friends who followed him. This is a rather bold statement, because it contradicts the essence of skeptical philosophy. Further, Diogenes reports that at first Pyrrho was engaged in painting, a picture written rather mediocre has been preserved. He lived in seclusion, rarely appearing even at home. The inhabitants of Elis respected him for his intelligence and elected him high priest. This raises some questions. Again, it is not clear how a person, being an extravagant and convinced skeptic, could become a high priest. Moreover, for his sake they decided to free all philosophers from taxes. More than once he left the house without saying anything to anyone, and wandered around with anyone. One day his friend Anaxarchus fell into a swamp, Pyrrho passed by without shaking his hand. Everyone scolded him, but Anaxarchus praised him. He lived with his sister, a midwife, carried chickens and piglets to the market to sell.
A famous case is mentioned by Diogenes Laertes: when Pyrrho was sailing on a ship and, together with his companions, got into a storm, everyone began to panic, only Pyrrho, pointing to the ship’s pig, which serenely slurped from its trough, said that this is how the true philosopher.
Little is known about Pyrrho's disciple Timon: only that he was a poet and expounded his teaching in the form of verses, syl. In the future, skeptical ideas began to develop in the Platonic Academy. The disciples of Plato developed the teachings of Plato in their own way. Carneades and Arcesilaus, considering themselves true Platonists, began to develop the theme of criticism of sensationalism and came to the conclusion that truth is unknowable. Nothing has come down to us from Carneades and Arcesilaus either. The supporter of academic skepticism is the ancient Roman orator and philosopher Cicero. He has a number of works where he sets out his point of view on academic skeptics. We can also get acquainted with academic skepticism in the work of Blessed. Augustine "Against the Academicians", where he criticizes their teaching.
In the future, Pyrrhonism is revived by Aenesidemus and Agrippa, and then already by Sextus Empiricus, the systematizer and, perhaps, the most talented deceiver of Pyrrhonism. Sextus Empiricus wrote 2 works - "Three Books of Pyrrho's Provisions" and "Against the Scholars".
Ancient skepticism, like all Hellenistic philosophy, posed primarily ethical questions, considering the main solution to the problem of how to live in this world, how to achieve a happy life. It is usually believed that skepticism is primarily a doubt about the cognizability of truth, and they reduce skepticism only to the theory of knowledge. However, with regard to Pyrrhonism, this is not at all the case. Sextus Empiricus divides all philosophical schools into 2 classes: dogmatic and skeptical. He also divides dogmatists into proper dogmatists and academicians. Dogmatists and academicians believe that they have already decided the question of truth: dogmatists, i.e. the followers of Aristotle, Epicurus, the Stoics, and others, claim that they have found the truth, while the academicians claim (also dogmatically) that it is impossible to find the truth. Only skeptics seek the truth. Hence, as Sextus Empiricus says, there are three main kinds of philosophy: dogmatic, academic, and skeptical. Diogenes Laertes writes that, in addition to the name "skeptics" - from the word "to look out", they were also called aporetics (from the word "aporia"), zetics (from the word "search") and effectiki (that is, doubters).
As Sextus Empiricus pointed out, the essence of skeptical philosophy boils down to the following: “The skeptical ability is that which opposes in any possible way the phenomenon to the conceivable, hence, due to the equivalence in opposite things and speeches, we come first to refraining from judgment, and then to equanimity.” I note that Sextus speaks of a skeptical ability, and never of a dogmatic one, showing that being a skeptic is natural for a person, while being a dogmatist is unnatural. At first, skeptics try to consider all phenomena and everything conceivable, find out that these phenomena and concepts can be perceived in different ways, including the opposite, they prove that in this way everyone will contradict each other, so that one judgment will balance another judgment. Due to the equivalence of judgments in opposite things and speeches, the skeptic decides to abstain from judging anything, and then comes to equanimity - ataraxia, i.e. to what the Stoics were looking for. And each of these stages was carefully developed by skeptics. Refraining from judgment is also called the term "epoch".
So the first task of a Pyrrhonician is to set everything against each other in whatever way possible. Therefore, the skeptic opposes everything: the phenomenon against the phenomenon, the phenomenon against the conceivable, the conceivable against the conceivable. For these purposes, Enesidemus developed ten trails, and Agrippa five more. Often these paths limit the consideration of skepticism, and there are good reasons for this. Here, indeed, are the foundations of ancient Pyrrhonism. But before considering the paths, let's try to understand whether it is really possible to live following the philosophy of ancient skepticism?
The dispute about this philosophy arose during the lifetime of the skeptics themselves, they were reproached for the fact that their philosophy was not viable, that it had no life guide. Because in order to live, you have to take something for the truth. If you doubt everything, then, as Aristotle said, a person going to Megara will never reach it, because one must be sure at least that Megara exists.
Skepticism was reproached for such sins by Pascal, Arno, Nicole, Hume and other philosophers of modern times. However, Sextus Empiricus writes something completely opposite - that the skeptic accepts his philosophy in order not to remain inactive, because it is dogmatic philosophy that leads a person to inactivity, only skepticism can serve as a guide in life and activity. The skeptic focuses primarily on phenomena, refuses to know the essence of things, because he is not sure of this, he is looking for it. What is certain for him is a phenomenon. As Pyrrho said: that honey seems sweet to me, I am sure of this, but I refrain from judging that it is sweet by nature.
The dogmatist, on the other hand, affirms some propositions about the essence of things, and they may be erroneous, which shows the difference between dogmatic schools. And what happens if a person begins to act in accordance with an erroneous philosophy? This will lead to sad consequences. If we rely in our philosophy only on phenomena, only on what we undoubtedly know, then all our activity will have a solid foundation.
This position of Sextus Empiricus has other roots. In the 1st century after R.Kh. in Greece there were three medical schools: methodical, dogmatic and empirical. The doctor Sextus belonged to the school of empiricists, hence his name "Empiricist". The doctor Galen belonged to the same school. These doctors argued that one should not search for the origins of diseases, one should not determine what is more in a person: earth or fire, one should not bring all four elements into harmony, but one should look at the symptoms and rid the patient of these symptoms. In the treatment of patients, this method gave good results, but empiricists wanted to treat not only the body, but also the soul. The main diseases of the soul are dogmatism and academicism, because they prevent a person from achieving happiness, and dogmatism must be cured. A person must be cured of what he is mistaken in, and he is mistaken in that it is possible to know the essence of things. It is necessary to show him that this is erroneous, to show that the truth is sought by trusting the phenomenon. In the chapter "Why Does a Skeptic Make Weak Arguments?" Sextus Empiricus writes about this. Indeed, when we read his works, we often see weak arguments, sometimes even funny ones. Sextus Empiricus himself knows this and says that skeptics deliberately do this - they say, one can be convinced with a weak argument, for the other one needs to build a solid philosophical system. The main thing is the goal, the achievement of happiness. However, for the sake of fairness, it must be said that skeptics have very few weak arguments.
So let's look at the skeptical arguments put forward by Sextus Empiricus. First, about the paths of Enisidem. There are ten of them, they mainly cover the sensual side of knowledge, and the five paths of Agrippa - the rational.
The first trope is based on the diversity of living beings and reads as follows. Philosophers argue that the criterion of truth is a person, i.e. he is the measure of all things (Protagoras) and he alone can know the truth. The skeptic rightly asks, why, in fact, a person? After all, a person learns the world around him through the senses. But the diversity of the animal world shows that animals also have sense organs and are different from humans. Why do we believe that the human senses give a truer picture of the world than the senses of animals? How can those with a narrow ear and those with a wide ear, those with hairy ears and those with smooth ears, hear equally? And we have no right to consider ourselves a criterion of truth. Therefore, we must refrain from judging, because we do not know whose sense organs can be trusted.
The second trope: the philosopher makes an assumption (narrowing the question): let's say that a person is a criterion of truth. But there are many people, and they are different. There are Scythians, Greeks, Indians. They tolerate cold and heat in different ways, food for some is healthy, for others it is harmful. People are diverse, and therefore it is impossible to say which person is the criterion of truth.
The third trope further narrows the field of study. The skeptic suggests that we have found a person who is the criterion of truth. But he has many sense organs that can give a picture of the world around him in different ways: honey tastes sweet, but is unpleasant to look at, rainwater is good for the eyes, and the respiratory tract becomes rough from it, etc. - this also implies abstinence judgments about the environment.
The fourth trope is about circumstances. Suppose there is a sense organ that we can trust the most, but there are always some circumstances: there are tears in the eyes that more or less affect the idea of a visible object, or an uneven state of mind: for a woman in love, a woman seems beautiful, for another - nothing special. Wine seems sour if you eat dates before it, and if you eat nuts or peas, then sweet, etc. This also results in refraining from judgment.
The fifth trope is about dependence on position, distances and places. For example, a tower seems small from a distance, but large up close. The same lamp flame is dim in the sun and bright in the dark. Coral is soft in the sea and hard in the air. The facts again force us to refrain from judging what the subject is in essence.
The sixth trope depends on impurities, writes Sextus. We never perceive any phenomenon in itself, but only in conjunction with something. It is always air or water or some other medium. One and the same sound is different in rare air or in dense air, aromas intoxicate in a bath more than in ordinary air, etc. Same conclusion as before.
The seventh trope concerns the size and structure of the underlying objects. The same object may look different depending on whether it is large or small, whether it is broken into its component parts or is whole. For example, filings of silver themselves appear black, but together as a whole they appear white; wine, consumed in moderation, strengthens us, and with excess, it relaxes the body, etc.
The eighth trope is about attitude towards something. It echoes the sixth. The skeptic claims that since everything exists in relation to something, we will refrain from saying what it is in isolation in its nature.
The ninth trope concerns the constantly or rarely encountered. The sun should strike us, of course, more, writes Sextus Empiricus, but since we see it constantly, and the comet is rare, we are amazed at the comet in such a way that we consider it a divine sign, and we are not surprised at all by the sun. What is less common surprises us, even if the event itself is very ordinary.
The tenth trope is connected with the question of morality and depends on beliefs and dogmatic provisions. different peoples, their customs. Sextus gives examples where he shows that different peoples have their own ideas about good and evil. Some Ethiopians tattoo small children, but we don't. The Persians consider it proper to wear long multicolored clothes, but we do not, and so on.
The first trope is about heterogeneity. It testifies that there is a huge variety of philosophical systems, people cannot agree and find the truth, it follows that if there is still no agreement, then it is necessary to refrain from judgment for the time being.
The second trope is about moving away to infinity. Based on it, the skeptic argues: in order to prove something, one must be based on a statement that must also be proved, it must be proved on the basis of some other statement, which in turn must also be proved, and so on. - we go to infinity, i.e. we don't know where to start justifying, and so we refrain from judging.
The third trope is called “relative to what,” in which the underlying thing seems to be this or that in relation to the one who judges or contemplates the subject. He who judges an object is at the same time the subject and the object of knowledge. When we judge something, we intervene in the process of cognition, therefore we cannot judge the object in itself, since it does not exist by itself, but exists only for us.
The fourth trope is about supposition. If a philosopher wants to avoid going to infinity, then he dogmatically assumes that some proposition is true in itself. But the skeptic does not agree to such a concession, believing that this is precisely a concession, the position is accepted without proof and therefore cannot claim the truth.
The fifth trope is on mutual provability, which says that in order to avoid infinity in a proof, philosophers often fall into the errors of mutual provability. One proposition is justified with the help of another, which in turn is justified with the help of the first.
All these tropes are used by skeptics when considering any philosophical question.
Skeptics argued with their contemporaries, the main opponents for them were the Stoics. In the books of Sextus Empiricus, there are objections to ethics, rhetoricians, geometers, astrologers (arguments from this book will be found in the works of the Church Fathers). Take, for example, the issue of causality. In particular, Sextus Empiricus considers the question, does a cause exist or not? First he proves that there is a cause, for it is difficult to suppose that there is any effect without its cause, then everything would be in complete disorder. But even with no less persuasiveness, he proves that there is no reason. For before we think of any effect, we must know that there is a cause that produces this effect, and in order to know that this is a cause, we must know that it is the cause of an effect, i.e. we can neither think the cause nor the effect separately, i.e. they are relative to each other. Therefore, in order to think the cause, one must first know the action, and in order to know the action, one must first know the cause. It follows from this mutual evidence that we cannot know either the cause or the effect.
A few words about how ancient skepticism interacted with nascent Christianity. Can we say that skepticism hindered or helped the spread of Christianity? Most historians of philosophy believe that ancient skepticism prepared the way for the seed of Christianity to fall on fertile ground through the preaching of the apostles. Skeptical views in the first years after A.D. were so common among ancient thinkers that any statement could be perceived as quite reliable and worthy. And skepticism prepared the ancient world to say: "I believe, because it is absurd." Therefore, we can say that skepticism played a preparatory role for the spread of Christianity in Europe.
Skepticism was developed in the writings of Lactantius, who considered skepticism a good introduction to Christianity. After all, skepticism shows the futility and weakness of our mind, it proves that the mind cannot know the truth on its own, this requires revelation. On the other hand, bliss. Augustine shows another way of dealing with skepticism Christian - the way to overcome it. In his writings, he proves that skepticism is not true philosophy. According to Augustine, skepticism destroys faith in truth, and since God is truth, skepticism leads to atheism. Therefore, every Christian must wage an uncompromising struggle against skepticism.
Current page: 4 (total book has 27 pages) [accessible reading excerpt: 18 pages]
1.2. Philosophical and historical background of ancient skepticism
Skeptical tendencies were present to a greater or lesser extent in Greek philosophy long before the formation of an independent skeptical tradition in it. Some ancient sources speak of a very ancient origin of skepticism and spread its influence quite widely. So, for example, the famous historian of ancient philosophy, Diogenes Laertes, reports that Homer is often called the founder of the skeptical school: “some say that this school was founded by Homer, because he, like no one else, spoke about the same thing in different places in different places and not at all. did not strive for dogmatic certainty of his statements" 141
Diog. L.IX. 71.
Skeptical also, Diogenes reports, consider the sayings of the seven wise men, such as “nothing too much” and “Bail is retribution” 142
Ibid.
In addition, skepticism is attributed, according to Diogenes Laertius, to Archilochus, Euripides, Xenophanes, Zeno of Elea, Democritus, Heraclitus and Hippocrates 143
See: Ibid. 71–73.
Cicero lists Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Parmenides, Plato, Socrates, Metrodorus of Chios, the Stoics and Cyrenaics among the supporters of skepticism 144
See: Cic. Acad. II. 5, 23.
According to Cicero, pre-Socratic philosophers, despite all, at first glance, their "non-skepticism", may well be considered as the forerunners of skepticism, since they, in despair from the difficulties of cognition, "exclaimed like crazy that nothing can be known" 145
See: Sokolskaya M.M. Infinite approximation to the truth // Cicero M.T. academic teaching. Per. ON THE. Fedorov. M.: "Indrik" 2004. S. 8–9.
R. Richter explains this kind of evidence by the desire of ancient authors to find support for the views that appeal to them in the teachings of outstanding predecessors, to attribute these views to authorities, appealing to which has always been an unspoken rule and almost an obligation. 146
See: Richter R. Skepticism in Philosophy. T. 1. Per. V. Bazarov, B. Stolpner. SPb., 1910. S. 40–41.
However, the skeptics themselves did not follow this trend. So Menodotus and Aenesidemus did not consider Plato a skeptic 147
Sext Emp. Pyrrh. I. 222-223.
And Sextus Empiricus took special care to delimit skeptical philosophy from views that are related or intersect with it at one point or another. 148
See: Ibid. 210–241.
In this case, it should be noted that partial or methodological skepticism is not alien to any philosophical construction, since the view that asserts something, precisely for the purpose of this assertion, must deny the opposite or doubt it, that is, treat it with skepticism. Therefore, it is not surprising that skepticism, or rather its elements, are somehow contained in any philosophical construction. No system of views, as a rule, can do without relative skepticism. It is not surprising, therefore, that authors who sympathize with skepticism see it almost everywhere, and this, as has just been shown, is not only justified, but necessary. It is also clear that the skeptics themselves decisively distinguished the partial skepticism of any philosophy from their absolute skepticism, which was an end in itself for them, emphasizing the fundamental difference and even opposition of the two types of skepticism: the first was ultimately only an element of positive dogmatism (according to skeptics), the second or self-sufficient doubt 149
See chapter II of this work.
However, skeptics still referred to the thinkers of the pre-Socratic and classical periods, not as their immediate predecessors, but as philosophers who developed some arguments acceptable to skeptics. The English researcher D. Sedley notes: “Of the early philosophers, to whose authority the skeptics of the Hellenistic era often appeal, some deserve respect not so much for their lack of dogmatism, but because they put forward arguments that were useful to skeptics. Heraclitus, the Eleatics, Anaxagoras and Protagoras are famous examples. Others, such as Xenophanes, Empedocles, Democritus, and Socrates, have won respect from skeptics by admitting, at least in moments of discouragement, that knowledge is unattainable or has not yet been achieved by people” (“Of the earlier philosophers to whose authority the Hellenistic skeptics often appealed, some deserved the honor less for any lack of dogmatism than because they had provided arguments useful to the skeptic. and Socrates, earned it by their admission, at any rate in their gloomier moments, that knowledge is unattainable, or as yet unattained, by man") 150
Sedley D. The Motivation of Greek Skepticism // The Skeptical Tradition. Ed. By Burnyeat M. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1983, pp. 9–29. R. 9.
It can be argued that ancient skepticism gradually matured in the process of a long prehistory of dogmatic (as the skeptics say) philosophy. Most likely, it will not be an exaggeration to assert that the very origin of philosophy in ancient Greece around the 6th century BC. BC e., the movement from “myth to logos” was fraught with considerable doubt: firstly, in the authority of mythological and religious traditions, and secondly, in the world that the senses draw to us, that is, in what something simple and familiar, familiar and understandable. The nascent philosophy, explaining the world in its own way, on the one hand, strove for understanding and enlightenment, tried to reach "to the very essence" of things and events, but, on the other hand, the love of wisdom made the previously simple difficult, the familiar - unfamiliar, understandable - incomprehensible, and thus could not but provoke doubts, a skeptical frame of mind. Despite all the differences between philosophical schools and areas of pre-Socratic philosophy, they have one fundamental similarity: the picture of the world drawn by each of them is a reversal of familiar ideas - it turns out that the visible, familiar, simple and understandable is not a true reality; The world is not what it seems to us. Philosophy surprises and puzzles the ordinary person (that is, the average person, or the so-called philistine). All the variety of things around us is actually various forms, manifestations, states, modifications of the world's primary principle - water, says Thales; air, - continuing the main idea of the teacher and at the same time objecting to him, - says his student Anaximenes. Well, we can probably still agree with this, although life experience , habitual expectations and common sense tell an ordinary (average) person who first encountered philosophy that stones, for example, are by no means water, much less air. But what should the same average person think if Pythagoras and his students say that the visible world is the otherness of the invisible, but really existing, perfect world of mathematical objects - numbers, proportions, symmetries, equations, geometric shapes, etc.; It seems to us, they continue, that mathematics is a product of our mind, but it turns out, surprisingly enough, that the world, and we, along with it, are a product of mathematics (that is, that very perfect world of mathematical objects). It seems to us that everything around consists of parts, changes and moves, but in fact this state of affairs is just an imperfect reflection of the perfect and true reality, which is indivisible, unchanging and motionless, the Eleatic philosophers say: this reality is invisible, but intelligible, and therefore what is real is not what can be seen, but what can be thought clearly and without contradictions, and since only indivisibility, immutability and immobility can be thought clearly and without contradictions, then the world familiar to us, in which everything consists of parts, changes and moving is not reality. Heraclitus suggests the opposite - everything is a constant process of change, which is based on the unobservable unity of opposite principles that are in eternal struggle. If we see anything unchanging, then in fact it is also a manifestation of omnipresent change. According to Democritus, it turns out that the things we see are also not reality, because the true reality is not they, but invisible atoms moving and interacting in the void. So, no matter what picture of the world this or that thinker or philosophical school builds, the general ideological vector in the eyes of an ordinary person looks like this: “Everything is not as it seems to you, but just the opposite, turn the usual picture of the world, do not even to your own eyes, give up the familiar, known and understandable, in order to meet with the unfamiliar and incomprehensible, at first glance, but really existing, deserving surprise and admiration. The very turning over of the usual picture of things is fraught with doubt, firstly, for the one who turns it over (because he needs to decisively doubt the old truths), and secondly, for the one in front of whom this revolution takes place; his doubt is doubled, i.e. to. the old is collapsing, and the new offered to replace it is also doubtful due to its, as it seems to him, improbability. Finally, the doubt of the latter even triples, because each philosopher carries out the revolution in his own way: one says that everything is not like this, but that's it, the other says that everything is not like that, but not like that either, but somehow, etc. e. Which of them to believe, with whom to agree? Each of them is convincing and right in its own way, but at the same time, since there are many of them (philosophers), and they all argue with each other, it turns out that none of them is right. So how is it really? The seeds of confusion, bewilderment and doubt in the human soul are the inevitable companions of the emerging philosophy.
Let's return to the Milesian philosophers, who were looking for the beginning of the world in something material or material, finding it in water (Thales), in air (Anaximenes), infinite (Anaximander). However, with no less reason, one could see the beginning in something ideal (form, concept, idea), which Pythagoras did when he declared number to be the world beginning. The skeptical tendency among the Milesians lies in the departure from popular religion and mythology, and in Pythagoras in his famous assertion that wisdom cannot be possessed, that one can only love it, strive for it. In addition, in the person of the Milesian philosophers and Pythagoras, ancient thought received two contradictory worldviews, the very opposition and antagonism of which inevitably gave rise to doubt in each of them.
Any change, the impossibility of which the Eleatic philosophers argued, is always the emergence, the formation of something from nothing, which is unthinkable. Therefore, any change, movement and multiplicity, due to unthinkability, do not exist, being an illusion, or a deception. Existing is that which can be clearly thought - motionless, boundless, single, eternal being. The Eleatics are opposed by Heraclitus, who believed that the whole world is a continuous process of passing and becoming, universal fluidity: “Everything flows and nothing becomes” 151
Plat. Crat. 440a, 440c. Theaet. 152d, 182c. Arist. Metaph. XII. 4.2.
Among the Eleatics and Heraclitus there is an even greater departure from popular religion and mythology. The founder of the Eleatic school, Xenophanes, made a brilliant critique of the Olympian religion, and Heraclitus countered popular polytheism with his philosophical monism. In addition, the Eleatics came to the conclusion that sensory knowledge is deceptive, since the senses constantly testify to change and multiplicity. To substantiate their conceivable being, they subtly proved the impossibility of obvious things (movement and divisibility), thereby laying the foundation for “dialectics” - the art of challenging the obvious and proving that any position can be affirmed and denied with equal grounds. In confirmation of the presence of skeptical elements in Eleatic philosophy, we note that, firstly, Gorgias derived his skeptical positions from the basic Eleatic principles, and secondly, Timon, ridiculing all philosophers, respected only Pyrrho and the Eleatics. As for their conceivable being, it appeared, according to the fair remark of A.F. Losev "only the result of the first passion from the disclosure of the difference between sensation and thinking" 152
Losev A.F. Cultural and historical significance of ancient skepticism ... S. 9.
Losev also notes that "... this principle of unknowable and indivisible being or unity saved Eleatic natural philosophy from skepticism very little" 153
There. C.10.
The skeptical tendency is undoubtedly represented in the relativism of Heraclitus: is it possible to have reliable knowledge of the world, which is an eternally fluid chaos. Hence the distrust of sensory knowledge in the teachings of Heraclitus 154
Diels. 12. B 107. Sext. Emp. Adv.math. VII. 120.
However, the latter is still far from skepticism, since in his philosophy, along with chaos, there is logos - the world law, the manifestation and expression of which is chaos (behind the general disorder is an absolute and unshakable order, the eternal and indestructible principle of the world). However, some students of Heraclitus drew extremely relativistic conclusions from his teachings. So, for example, Cratyl believed that “... one should not [even] say anything, but only moved his finger and reproached Heraclitus with his words that you cannot enter the same water twice. Namely, he himself thought that [this cannot be done] even once. 155
Arist. Metaph. III. 5.18.
There are clearly expressed skeptical elements in Democritus' system. The Abder thinker argued that only an indivisible particle (atom) can be the bearer of being, which, never falling apart, exists forever. According to Democritus, atoms move in the void, and their combination leads to the formation of things, and their separation leads to the death of things. Thus, the latter are just a temporary combination of atoms, due to which both the things themselves and their properties are not so much a being as its illusion; and the knowledge of the sensible world, therefore, is unreliable, since no one can discover the true reality - atoms and emptiness. “According to established custom, sweet and customary bitter, customary warm, customary cold, customary colored,” says Democritus, “in reality, atoms and emptiness” 156
Diels. 55. B 9. Sext. Emp. Adv.math. VII. 135.
Honey in itself is neither sweet nor bitter - it is just a complex of atoms, it is "no more" than something else. 157
Democritus already uses this skeptical formula, but in a slightly different sense. See: Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. I. 213-214.
In the ethical sphere, Democritus proclaimed the same life ideal of ataraxia (equanimity), which was also preached by skeptics. There is even a point of view, expressed by Hirzel, that the Democritanian doctrine was the only source of Pyrrho's skepticism. Richter considers and criticizes this view in detail. 158
See: Richter R. Skepticism in Philosophy. Note. C.VI
Skeptical elements in the teachings of Democritus were developed by his students. So Metrodorus of Chios argued: “we know nothing; and we don't even know that we don't know anything" 159
Sext. Emp. Adv.math. VII. 88.
Anaxarchus and Monim compared existence with a theatrical scenery and considered it similar to what happens during dreams or madness. 160
See: Ibid.
Sooner or later, due to philosophical heterogeneity, the question of the possibilities and limits of human cognition had to arise. It is possible to assert that the elements of epistemological problems arose in pre-Socratic philosophy. However, the sophists began to pay closer attention to it. They certainly stood much closer to skepticism than their predecessors. The famous saying of Protagoras that “man is the measure of all things that exist, that they exist, that do not exist, that they do not exist” 161
Diels. 74. B 1 = Sext. Emp. Adv.math. VII 60–61 = Diog. L.IX. 51
In fact, the only evidence of an outstanding sophist that has come down to us has been interpreted differently. According to Richter, Grot, Laas, Gomperz, Halbfas and others argued that the protagoraean thesis refers to the entire human race, and not a separate person, and therefore it has not an individual, but general meaning. This is refuted, Richter notes, by the evidence of Plato, Aristotle, Democritus, Sextus, and at the present time by Zeller, Natorp, Meyer 162
See: Richter R. Skepticism in Philosophy. Note. 30. S.VII.
Apparently, this position of Protagoras is a thesis that lies in the philosophical channel of subjectivism: what is true for each person is what appears, seems, or is such to him. In addition, Protagoras denied any knowledge other than sensory: "beyond what our sensations give us, our soul is nothing" 163
Diog. L. IX 51.
From the foregoing, one can draw a twofold conclusion: perhaps, Losev suggests, Protagoras' position about man as the measure of all things should be understood as a statement that everything is true and there is nothing false, or vice versa 164
See: Losev A.F. Cultural and historical significance of ancient skepticism… С11.
Or it is possible to recognize in the thesis of Protagoras a complete doubt. In any case, we clearly see in Protagoras a subjectivist tendency, and therefore the possibility of the same base to affirm and deny any thesis, i.e., the principle of isosthenia (iaoaBeveux), which is, as will be discussed further, one of the main provisions of skepticism. The principle of isosthenia was first proclaimed by Protagoras, who, according to Diogenes Laertes, “for the first time said that two statements opposing each other can be made about any thing” 165
Diog. L.IX. 51.
Protagoras' isosthenic positions are well illustrated by his statement about the gods: “About the gods, I cannot know either that they exist or that they do not exist; a lot prevents me from knowing this, and above all - the darkness of the subject and the brevity of human life " 166
Diog. L.IX. 51.
According to Sextus Empiricus, Gorgias in his work “On Non-Existent, or On Nature” originally formulated the sophistic doctrine, arranging three chapters in succession: the first, that nothing exists; the second - that even if it exists, it is incomprehensible to man; and the third - that if it is comprehensible, then in any case it is inexpressible and inexplicable for another. 167
Diels. 76. B 3 = Sext. Emp. Adv.math. VII. 65.
As for the first two theses, Gorgias does not assert them dogmatically, assuming the opposite (as evidenced by the implicative construction of the second and third thesis - “if ..., then”) Therefore, on the whole, his position is isosthenic.
Since the sophists were, for the most part, paid teachers of wisdom, philosophizing for them, apparently, was not an end in itself. Perhaps that is why the significant skeptical charge of Greek sophistry did not turn into proper philosophical skepticism. V. Brochard notes that youthful activity prevails in sophistry, and senile fatigue prevails in Pyrrhonism 168
See: Richter R. Skepticism in Philosophy. Note. 46. S.Kh.
McCall also emphasizes that the Sophists, unlike the Pyrrhonics, did not live by love of happiness, but by love of truth ("not from love of happiness but from love of truth") 169
Maccoll N. The Greek Skeptics from Pyrrho to Sextus. Lond. And Camb., 1869. P. 17.
. (Here, apparently, it should be noted that we are talking about the truth according to which there is no single and generally accepted truth.)
The Socratic opposition to the subjectivism and relativism of the sophists lies primarily in the assertion that, despite all the subjective characteristics of people, there must certainly be something common for everyone, which rises above the differences between people and unites the latter, and that the goal of philosophy is precisely to find and the rationale for this general. However, the heuristic method by which Socrates went to this goal contained a significant skeptical element: after all, according to Socrates, each person should not blindly follow an authoritative judgment, but independently, through doubts, contradictions, bewilderment and disappointment, seek the truth. It was precisely for this methodical, instrumental skepticism that contemporaries accused the outstanding philosopher of ungodliness (ἀσέβεια), allegedly expressed in disrespect for state laws and corrupting youth.
The teachings of Plato and Aristotle, despite all their objectivism, were not alien to distinctly expressed skeptical tendencies. So, for example, in the Timaeus dialogue, Plato emphasizes that there is nothing surprising in the fact that “... we, considering many things in many respects, such as the gods and the birth of the Universe, will not achieve complete accuracy and consistency in our reasoning. On the contrary, we should rejoice if our reasoning turns out to be no less plausible than any other, and, moreover, remember that I, the reasoner, and you, my judges, are only people, and therefore we have to be content in such matters with a plausible myth, not demanding more" 170
Plat. Tim. 29c-d.
; and elsewhere he says that: "our investigation must proceed in such a way as to achieve the greatest degree of probability" 171
Ibid. 44d.
Skeptical elements in the teachings of such non-skeptical philosophers as Plato and Aristotle are explained by the fact that in their systems, in addition to absolute being (ideas and forms), there is also matter, which is interpreted either as non-being, bearing, or as other being; and if Plato's ideas and Aristotle's forms are the guarantor of the world's stability and unconditionality, then they use matter as the source of its uncertainty and instability. She is just a "receiver" 172
Plat. Tim. 41a: "of every birth, the recipient and nurse." There. 51a: "mother and recipient of everything sensual."
Being and therefore “... that which only reproduces the prototype and is only a semblance of the real image, and one can speak no more than plausibly. For as being is related to birth, so truth is related to faith. 173
Ibid. 29c.
As a result of this instability, Plato notes, any thing can be completely different from what it is to us at one time or another. 174
See: Ibid. 48e-50a.
This means that our judgments about these transient things can only be of a probabilistic nature. 175
See: Ibid. 56c.
In the teachings of Aristotle, discussions about the instability and relativity of things are contained in the treatise "Topeka", which is devoted to the interpretation of reality as a structure that is constantly becoming and therefore, to a certain extent, unpredictable. An innumerable number of different facets, sides or nuances (topoi) of the universe gives it an infinite qualitative diversity. In addition, the eternal interaction and movement of these nuances determines the probabilistic and transient nature of the cosmos.
So, for all the positivity that is generally characteristic of various teachings Greek philosophy in all its periods, the Hellenic thinkers also spoke about such aspects of being that made it understood not only as something stable, harmonious, absolute and unconditional, but also as a process of formation and change, as something unstable, relative, in some least even random and therefore, in many respects, conditional and unpredictable. As you can see, long before the appearance of the skeptical school in Hellenic philosophy, among others, the idea of the universe as something unstable and difficult to understand was fully formed. It remained for the skeptics to focus their attention precisely on such a worldview, to comprehensively substantiate and develop it.
In addition, the very historical context of the end of the 4th-3rd centuries. BC e. favored the emergence of skepticism as an independent philosophical direction. The Hellenistic era, which began with Alexander's campaign to the East, was characterized by extreme instability of both economic, political, social, and cultural realities. Historical life and individual existence were characterized at that time primarily by unpredictability and the loss of all previous guarantees and guidelines. The centuries-old measured and calm course of life was destroyed within a few years, and a person from a quiet and peaceful abode of the policy was thrown into the whirlpool of the raging Hellenistic elements. Such historical conditions have contributed to the emergence of skepticism in two ways. First, the general relativity and instability of life naturally evoked pessimism, unbelief, doubt, i.e., gave rise to so-called everyday skepticism, or mood skepticism; and any state or mood inevitably begins to create theoretical substantiation and confirmation. Thus, mood skepticism, provoked by a specific historical situation, gave rise to or stimulated philosophical skepticism. Secondly, already known historical realities, in the ethical sphere, characterized by the loss of any external, generally significant foundations, guidelines, principles and guarantees for the individual, inevitably forced him to look for postulates no longer outside, but within himself, turned human thought mainly to ethical issues, calling to life the need for a theoretical substantiation of subjectivism, the ethical and philosophical search for individual happiness. "... ancient philosophy, - notes M.M. Sokolskaya, speaking of the emergence of an independent skeptical trend in the last era of Hellenic philosophy, who at first promised to reveal to people the “true order” hidden behind the surface of perceived things, came over a long path of development to remind again that this surface is our only a given, and uncertainty is a state inseparable from the very nature of man. 176
Sokolskaya M.M. Infinite approximation to the truth / / Cicero M.T. academic teaching. Per. ON THE. Fedorov. Moscow: Indrik, 2004, pp. 4–48. S. 48.
The philosophical schools that appeared at that time went in different ways towards the same goal. Self-sufficient happiness (eudaimonia) among the Epicureans is the result of deviation from the world, among the Stoics, on the contrary, it is the result of following it, among the skeptics it is neither one nor the other, but a decisive doubt in everything.
The only general overview of the history of Greek philosophy that has come down to us from antiquity is that of Diogenes Laertes. The name of this writer, apparently, indicates that he was from the Asia Minor city of Laerta. According to another assumption, this name is only a pseudonym, adopted in consonance with the Homeric epithet of Odysseus: "Bogorodny Laertides." The life of Diogenes refers to the first decades of the 3rd century BC. n. e .: he already knows the skeptical school of Sextus Empiricus, but is not yet familiar with Neoplatonism. Nothing is known about his life. In addition to the essay on philosophers, he owned a collection of poems "All Sizes", from where he willingly quotes his very mediocre epigrams on the death of famous philosophers.
The work of Diogenes Laertes is called "The Life and Teachings of Famous Philosophers". It consists of 10 books with a preface and has survived almost entirely. Philosophers are grouped by school, the schools are arranged in the order of traditional succession: first the Ionian philosophers, then Socrates and the Socratic schools, then Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans, then all the rest. Plato, the Stoics, and Epicurus are discussed in most detail. The work was dedicated to some noble admirer of Plato; it is assumed that it was Arria, mentioned by the physician Galen, or Empress Julia Domna, wife of Septimius Severus.
Diogenes Laertes is one of those numerous compilers whose activities are so characteristic of late antiquity. His method of work does not differ from that of Gellius, Athenaeus, or Aelian. However, due to its theme, the work of Diogenes is of particular interest. First of all, it is a precious source of information on the history of philosophy; in addition, it shows the nature of the philosophical culture of its time.
The writing of Diogenes is full of deep reverence for philosophy. Philosophy for Diogenes is the best lot of life, philosophers are the benefactors of mankind. However, bowing to philosophy, Diogenes does not understand it and does not try to understand it. It is sacred to him due to its deep antiquity and valuable because it brings happiness to a person. Every philosophical school can trace its genealogy almost to the time of the seven sages, and each claims to lead its followers to true happiness, so for Diogenes all schools are equally worthy of respect, and he speaks of Plato and Epicurus with equal enthusiasm. , about the Stoics and about the skeptics. He has no views of his own. He confuses Anaximander with Anaxagoras and Xenophanes with Xenophon. The book of Diogenes is a kind of history of philosophy, but its author is neither a historian nor a philosopher. He writes not for specialists, but for amateurs. He is interested not so much in the content of philosophical teachings as in the results to which these teachings lead: his book is not a textbook, but a collection of instructive examples. The lives of philosophers crumble into innumerable anecdotes, and philosophical systems- on disparate "opinions" and "judgments". At the same time, Diogenes cares more about brightness than about specificity: he is not concerned with either the historical accuracy of the reported anecdotes, or the place of the opinions given in the philosopher's system of views. Particulars distract the author's attention from the whole: his narrative is incoherent, and his style is sloppy.
The book of Diogenes is highly characteristic of that intermediate stage in the development of ancient society, when philosophy had already ceased to be a science and had not yet become a religion.
Chantilly Castle - the second in France after Versailles Chantilly Castle how to get from Paris
Amusement park "The Land of Legends Theme Park" in Turkey
Holy places in Greece. Greece Orthodox. Pilgrimage to the feast of St. Nicholas
Picodi: All discounts in one place!
How to get to Dolmabahce Palace