Philosophical thought in ancient Rome. Philosophy in the time of the Roman Empire Features of the development of philosophy in ancient Rome

Philosophy of ancient Rome

Ancient Rome did not create new philosophical systems. After the subjugation of Greece to Rome, the teachings that appeared in Ancient Greece in the era of the collapse of the Athenian state, such as Epicureanism, Stoicism, and skepticism, are transferred to ancient Roman soil. The prestige of the philosopher reaches its highest point. " Powerful of the world they kept a domestic philosopher with their person, who was at the same time their closest friend, mentor, guardian of their souls ... In great sorrows they invited the philosopher to console him " (Renan E. Marcus Aurelius ... S. 29-30). The philosopher fulfilled the role that confessors later played in Christianity. “Thus, a real historical miracle was realized, which can be called the dominion of philosophers” (Ibid., p. 32). The practical orientation of the Roman soul led to the fact that in ancient Rome they were interested not in dialectics and metaphysics, but mainly in ethics. The Romans took two main themes from Greek philosophy: how to avoid the fear of death (this was what the Epicureans strove for) and how to meet it with dignity (the Stoics). In ancient Greece, opposed, in ancient Rome, the Stoics and Epicureans complemented each other (Seneca most readily quoted Epicurus).

The popularity of Epicurus was promoted by the poem "On the Nature of Things" by Lucretius Cara, a native of Rome (c. 99 - c. 55 BC). Lucretius was not a theoretician, but a poet, more an Epicurean than a poet, because he himself explained that he undertook to present the views of Epicurus in poetic form to facilitate their perception, following the principle that the main thing is pleasure, as, say, a patient is given bitter medicine along with honey, so that it is not unpleasant to drink it.

The problem of "God and evil" is one of the most difficult in ethics. Christianity answers it by stating that God has given people free will; Indian philosophy - the concept of karma. The Epicureans give their answer, believing that the gods do not interfere in the lives of people, because otherwise, according to Epicurus, one would have to admit that the gods that allow evil are either not omnipotent or not omnipotent.

And an interesting thing: Epicurus himself, according to Lucretius, turns out to be higher than the gods, because the gods do not interfere, and Epicurus saved humanity from fears with his teachings. Once again we are convinced: the lower the gods are placed, the higher the person turns out to be. “I don’t know anything about the gods,” says Buddha, and ... he becomes deified. The gods do not interfere, says Epicurus, and ... is revered as a god. A recent example is the deification of the rulers of an atheistic state.

The poem of Lucretius ends with a description of mass death from an epidemic. So the optimistic teaching of Epicurus unexpectedly turns into a pessimistic conclusion of the Roman poet regarding the possibility of its realization in life. In the future, with the formation of the empire, there was no room for optimistic teachings at all, and we see only stoics and skeptics.

Epicureanism is more suitable for free people who can climb into the "ivory tower". And the slave? How can he live unnoticed and without fear to enjoy life? Every person in the era of the empire was under the heel of a tyrant. Under these conditions, the teaching of Epicurus loses its vitality, no longer fits the social circumstances of the Roman Empire, when a person is forced to confront the authorities.

None of the numerous followers of Epicurus changed anything in his teaching. Either it is so integral that neither add nor subtract, or creative people did not go to the Epicureans. On the contrary, the metaphysics of the Stoics made a strong tilt towards Platonic idealism, while ethics (and for the Stoics, especially the Roman ones, it was the main one) changed little.

The views of the Roman Stoics differed from the Greek in tone - the strength of their feelings and the expressiveness of their position - and this was due to a change in social conditions. Gradually, the dignity of people was undermined and at the same time their confidence.

The psychological margin of safety was exhausted, and the motives of doom began to prevail. B. Russell wrote that in bad times philosophers invent consolations. “We cannot be happy, but we can be good; let us imagine that as long as we are kind, it does not matter that we are unhappy. This doctrine is heroic and useful in a bad world." (Russell B. History of Western Philosophy. M., 1959. S. 286).

Among the Roman Stoics, the leading features are not pride, dignity, self-confidence and inner steadfastness, but rather weakness, a feeling of insignificance, confusion, brokenness. They do not have the optimism of the Greeks. The concepts of evil and death come to the fore. The Roman Stoics demonstrate the steadfastness of despair and patience, through which the motive of spiritual freedom breaks through.

A famous Roman propagandist of Stoicism was Cicero. They explained the basic Stoic concepts. “But the first task of justice is not to harm anyone, unless you are called to do so by illegality” (Cicero. About old age. About friendship. About responsibilities. M., 1974. S. 63). To live in harmony with nature means “to be always in harmony with virtue, and to choose everything else that corresponds to nature only if it does not contradict virtue” (i.e., wealth, health, etc.). More, however, Cicero became famous as an orator.

Cicero stood at the deathbed of the Republic. As a senator, he speaks like a statesman to the subjects who have elected him. The next famous stoic came when the republic perished. Seneca does not dream of its restoration, he resigned himself to this and his sermon, not edifying, like Cicero's, but friendly, does not address the inhabitants of the state, but to an individual, a friend. The Spaniard Seneca (c. 5 BC - 65 AD) was born in Rome. From 48 AD e. he is the tutor of the future emperor Nero, from whom he accepted death. This is an author for all times and peoples, and if there are several books that everyone should read in their lives, this list includes Moral Letters to Lucilius.

From an aesthetic and moral point of view, the works of Seneca are impeccable. Even in Plato, highly artistic pieces of text are interspersed with quite ordinary ones. In Seneca, everything is carefully finished and combined into one whole, although we are dealing with a series of letters, apparently, indeed, written to the addressee in different time. The unity of the work gives the integrity of the author's worldview. The moral preaching of Seneca does not sin with edification, cheap slogans, but subtly leads and convinces. We see in the author a combination of pride, valor, nobility and mercy, which we do not find either among Christian missionaries or philosophers of modern times.

In the work of Seneca, the motive of suffering prevails, and confidence in the possibility of getting rid of them goes out, leaving hope only for oneself. “We are not able to change ... the order of things, but we are able to gain greatness of spirit, worthy of a good man, and stoically endure all the vicissitudes of the case without arguing with nature” (Seneca L.A. Moral letters to Lucilius. M., 1977. S. 270). Outside of himself, man is powerless, but he can be master of himself. Look for support in your own soul, which is God in man, Seneca advises.

Seneca contrasts external pressure with individual moral self-improvement and the struggle, first of all, with one's own vices. “I didn’t judge anything but myself. And why do you come to me in the hope of benefit. Anyone who expects to find help here is mistaken. Not a doctor, but a patient lives here” (Ibid., p. 124). Unlike the Cynics of the heyday of philosophy, Seneca considers himself sick.

In order to gain independence from the despotic forces in the power of which a person is, Seneca proposes to become indifferent to fate, not to follow like cattle the leaders of the herd and views that find many followers, but to live as required by reason and duty, i.e. by nature. “To live happily and live according to nature is one and the same” (Anthology of World Philosophy. T. I. C. 514).

According to Seneca, death is needed not because suffering exceeds pleasure, as for Hegesius, but as a way of liberation from a life that does not correspond to human dignity. The motive for suicide in Seneca becomes so strong because in the era of the empire it was the only way to become free, and freedom first began to be valued when it disappeared from real life.

The chanting of death by the Roman Stoics is not a thirst for death, but an acknowledgment of the defeat of man. “To the one who fell into the hands of the ruler, who strikes his friends with arrows, to the one whom the master forces to tear out the insides of his own children, I will say: why are you crying, madman, what are you waiting for? For an enemy to destroy your family, for some foreign ruler to attack you? Wherever you turn your eyes, everywhere you will find the way out of your troubles! Look at this steep cliff - it leads to freedom, look at this sea, this stream, this well - freedom lurks at the bottom of them; look at this tree - low, withered, miserable - freedom hangs from it. Your neck, your throat, your heart - they will help you avoid slavery. But these paths are too difficult, they require great strength, mental and bodily; you ask what path to freedom is open; it is in any blood vein of your body” (History of Roman Literature, vol. 2, p. 81).

Death for Seneca is the criterion of a lived life. “All our previous words and deeds are nothing ... death will show what I have achieved, and I will believe it” (Seneca L.A. Moral letters ... S. 50). “Death is not evil. You ask what she is? “The only thing in which the entire human race is equal” (Ibid., p. 320). But in life, all people are equal in one thing - both free and slaves. All people are slaves to fortune. And each is in bondage to himself. “Show me who is not a slave. One is in slavery to lust, the other is in stinginess, the third is in ambition, and all is in fear ... There is no slavery more shameful than voluntary” (Ibid., p. 79). Understanding slavery in the broadest sense and fighting against it, thereby reflecting the growing anti-slavery sentiment, Seneca believes that every person is potentially free, in his soul.

Seneca's morality is distinguished by mercy, philanthropy, compassion, pity, reverent attitude towards other people, benevolence, gentleness. In an all-powerful empire, the life of a philosopher is not safe, and this was fully experienced by Seneca, who was accused by a former student Nero of plotting against himself. Although no evidence was found, Seneca, without waiting for arrest, opened his veins, remaining faithful to his views. It is not so important whether Seneca participated in the conspiracy, the fact that he took part in state affairs at such a time suggests that he was preparing his own death.

Seneca is the pinnacle of moral and philosophical thought. He managed to synthesize what was valuable in ancient ethics, not excluding the opponent of the Stoics, Epicurus. Seneca mocked sophisms and antinomies. He could agree that objective truth is impossible, but for him this question is not important, but the question of how to live? You cannot escape from it by paradoxes, it must be solved here and now.

Seneca united the fates of three great ancient Greek philosophers. He was the tutor of the future emperor, like Aristotle; wrote as artistically as Plato; and died, like Socrates, in the conviction that, according to the establishment of nature, "the one who brings evil is more unfortunate than the one who suffers."

Epictetus (c. 50-140) was the first of the famous philosophers who was a slave, but for the Stoics, who recognize all people as equal, this is not surprising. The owner, who mocked him, broke his leg, and then released the cripple. Together with other philosophers, he was subsequently expelled from Rome and opened his own school in Nicopolis (Epirus). His students were aristocrats, the poor, slaves. In his school of moral perfection, Epictetus taught only ethics, which he called the soul of philosophy.

The first thing the student needed was to realize his own weakness and impotence, which Epictetus called the principles of philosophy. The Stoics, following the Cynics, believed that philosophy is medicine for the soul, but for a person to want to take medicine, he must understand that he is sick. “If you want to be good, first be imbued with the conviction that you are bad” (Quoted in: Makovelsky A. Moral of Epictetus. Kazan, 1912, p. 6).

The first stage of philosophical education is the rejection of false knowledge. Having begun to study philosophy, a person experiences a state of shock, when, under the influence of true knowledge, he seems to go crazy, abandoning his usual ideas. After that, new knowledge becomes the feeling and will of a person.

Three things are necessary, according to Epictetus, to become virtuous: theoretical knowledge, internal self-improvement and practical exercises("moral gymnastics"). It requires daily self-examination, constant attention to yourself, your thoughts, feelings and actions; vigilantly watching oneself as one's worst enemy. For liberation from passions, it is necessary to gradually reduce the food that they eat. If you are used to being angry every day, try to be angry every other day, etc.

The two main principles of Epictetus are: "withstand and abstain." Steadfastly withstand all the external difficulties that fall upon you, and whatever happens, take it easy. Refrain from any manifestation of your own passions, remembering that yours is only the mind and soul as something unified and rational, and not the body.

On earth all are captives and equally children of God. Epictetus appealed to God so passionately that he was called the forerunner of Christianity. We find in Epictetus and Golden Rule ethics. “The situation that you do not tolerate, do not create for others. If you do not want to be a slave, do not tolerate slavery around you.

Unusually for a philosopher, but completely opposite to that of Epictetus, the social position of Marcus Aurelius (121-180) is emperor. Nevertheless, his pessimism and the courage of despair are just as expressive. Shaky became not only the position of the individual, especially the slave, but also the empire. It was time for her decline. Marcus Aurelius had great power, but it did not please him. Strange as it may seem, it is precisely during the period of the maximum power of the empire that a person inside it feels most unprotected and insignificant, crushed and helpless. The stronger the state, the weaker the individual. And not only a slave or a courtier, but the almighty ruler himself.

Like all Stoics, Marcus Aurelius is looking for meaning. “What do I need to live in a world where there is no deity, where there is no providence” (Marcus Aurelius. Reflections. II, 11). The attempt to get rid of addictions undertaken by the Epicureans makes life meaningless. It is the duty of man to carry out a reasonable trade. “I am doing my duty. Nothing else diverts my attention."

The fulfillment of duty is facilitated by virtues, or rather one virtue as a unity, in various situations manifested in the form of prudence - the knowledge of what is good, what is evil, what should be done and what should not; sanity - the knowledge of what to choose, what to avoid; justice - knowledge about retribution to each according to his merits; courage, knowledge about the terrible and fearless; righteousness - justice towards the gods.

Marcus Aurelius also speaks about the desirability of such character traits as simplicity, integrity, integrity, seriousness, modesty, piety, benevolence, love, firmness in the performance of a proper deed. “So show yourself in what is entirely dependent on you: genuineness, strictness of character, endurance, harshness towards yourself, lack of concern, unpretentiousness, benevolence, nobility, self-restraint, not speaking, majesty” (Ibid. IV, 5). “Perfection of character is to spend every day as if it were the last” (Ibid. VII, 69).

Marcus Aurelius came very close to the gospel "love your enemies", although he was an opponent of Christianity. He gives three excuses for why you should not be angry at those who offended you: first, your own goodwill is tested on this; secondly, people cannot be corrected, and therefore there is no point in denouncing them; Thirdly, " The best way revenge on the unkind consists in not becoming like them” (Ibid. VI, 6).

The universal mind is everywhere, like air, and it must be thanked for everything, even for misfortunes. Fate prescribes something to a person, as a doctor prescribes a medicine. Here is not philosophy, as in the Cynics, but fate is a doctor. The medicine is bitter. So the evil in the world is a bitter medicine that nature heals. This is close to the Christian idea that a disease is given as a punishment for sins, and a person cannot and should not figure out what he is punished for. Nature would not give sickness if it did not benefit the whole.

The obstacles themselves, like evil, help us. “And the very obstacle to the cause advances in the matter and the difficulty of the path leads along the path” (Ibid. V, 20). Pain and pleasure have nothing to do with ethics, since they do not make a person better or worse, and therefore are neither good nor evil. Marcus Aurelius owns the well-known expression "life is a struggle", although he was not inclined to admire this.

The main thing in life is to be worthy of God, genius, virtue, and keep your own color, like an emerald. “Curl up into yourself” (Ibid. VII, 28). Live in the present day, but without becoming attached to it, and do not be offended by anyone.

An important place in the philosophy of Marcus Aurelius is occupied by the requirement to always be the same in response to the actions of external circumstances, which means constant proportionality, internal consistency of the mental disposition and all life. “To be like a cliff against which a wave is constantly beating; he stands, and the heated wave subsides around him” (Ibid. V, 49).

Similar thoughts were found in Seneca. “Trust me, it’s a great thing to always play the same role. But no one but the sage does this; all other manifolds" (Seneca A. L. Moral letters ... S. 310). The lack of integrity and wholeness is the reason that people, entangled in the change of masks, turn out to be split. And integrity is needed because the person himself is a part of the world whole, without which he cannot exist separately from the rest of the body, like an arm or a leg. The idea of the unity of everything in the universe is constantly repeated by Marcus Aurelius.

That was the only case in world history when a state was ruled by a philosopher and the visible social pinnacle of the triumph of philosophy was reached. It would seem that it was Marcus Aurelius who would try to arrange a state on the principles that had been developed by philosophy since Socrates and Plato. But he not only did not start cardinal transformations (although as an emperor he had every opportunity - not like Plato), but did not even turn to people with philosophical sermons that had become fashionable at that time, but kept only a diary - for himself. This is an extreme degree of disappointment in the hope of improving the situation. Plato's wish for a philosopher to rule the state came true, but Marcus Aurelius understood how difficult it was to correct people and social relations. In the self-belittling of Socrates there was irony, in the self-belittling of Seneca and Marcus Aurelius there was genuine sorrow.

The former slave Epictetus, the philosopher on the throne, Marcus Aurelius, the statesman and writer Seneca, who teaches people how to live, are comparable in artistic talent with Plato, and in the poignancy of their writings, closer to us than Plato, these are the most significant names of Roman stoicism. All three were united by the conviction that there is a reasonable need for submission to the universal higher principle, and only the mind, and not the body, should be considered one's own. The difference is that, according to Seneca, in the external world everything is subject to fate; according to Epictetus - the will of the gods; according to Marcus Aurelius - the world mind.

The similarity between the Roman Stoics and the Epicureans, as well as between the Greeks, was in the orientation towards life by nature, isolation and autarchy, serenity and apathy, in the idea of the materiality of the gods and the soul, the mortality of man and his return to the world whole. But the understanding of nature by the Epicureans as the material universe, and by the Stoics as mind remained; justice as a social contract - by the Epicureans, and as a duty to the whole world - by the Stoics; recognition of free will by the Epicureans and higher order and predestination by the Stoics; the idea of the linearity of the development of the world among the Epicureans and the cyclical development of the Stoics; orientation towards personal friendship among the Epicureans and participation in public affairs among the Stoics. For the Stoics, the source of happiness is reason, and the main concept is virtue; for the Epicureans, respectively, feelings and pleasures. The Stoics began to move away from the main line of antiquity, and the motives of mercy and humility brought them closer to Christian ethics, like the desire to suppress all desires - to Buddhism. The later Stoics, however, lacked self-confidence, were gnawed by skepticism, and here they gave way to religion.

However, if everything is denied, then it is impossible to talk about anything. It still makes me speak positively. If I don't know if I know something, then maybe I do know something? Consistent skepticism opens the way to faith. It is the merit of the skeptics to try to define the limits of rational thought in order to know what can and cannot be expected from philosophy. Dissatisfied with the framework in which the mind functions, they turned to religion. Undermining the conclusions of reason, the skeptics more and more incline people to faith and thus prepared the victory of Christianity, for which faith is higher than reason. They were helped by the Epicureans and the Stoics. It turned out that the fear of death cannot be defeated by reasonable arguments. Christianity did not arise by chance; its spread was prepared by the logic of the development of ancient culture. People want not only happiness here, but also after death. Neither Epicurus nor the Stoics nor the Skeptics promised this. Faced with a dilemma: reason or faith, people preferred faith, in this case Christian. Turning away from rational wisdom, a younger and more self-confident Christianity defeated the decrepit ancient philosophy. The latter reposed like a wise old man giving way to a new generation.

From the end of the 2nd century Christianity takes over the minds of the masses. It can be said that Christianity, in the fight against philosophy, defeated the most powerful empire in the history of mankind, and the only emperor-philosopher in history suffered a crushing spiritual defeat. Why did this happen? The weakening of the creative potential of ancient philosophy, the change in the spiritual climate and social conditions of the then society led to the triumph of Christianity. Philosophy was first overthrown, and then used for the needs of religion, turning into a servant of theology for one and a half thousand years.

In Roman civilization, philosophy loses its theoretical power, becoming predominantly practical wisdom, which deprives it of its main advantage - a reasonable search for truth. Trying to be primarily useful, philosophy exhausts itself.

This text is an introductory piece.

Philosophy is characterized by eclecticism, like the whole of this era. This culture was formed in conflict with the Greek civilization and at the same time felt unity with it. Roman philosophy was not very interested in how nature works - it mainly talked about life, overcoming adversity and danger, as well as how to combine religion, physics, logic and ethics.

The doctrine of the virtues

One of the most prominent representatives of the Stoic school was Seneca. He was the teacher of Nero, the emperor of ancient Rome, known for his bad reputation. set out in such works as "Letters to Lucilius", "Questions of Nature". But Roman Stoicism was different from the classical Greek trend. So, Zeno and Chrysippus considered logic the skeleton of philosophy, and the soul - physics. Ethics, they considered it to be its muscles. Seneca was the new Stoic. The soul of thought and of all virtue he called ethics. Yes, and he lived in accordance with his principles. For the fact that he did not approve of the repression of his pupil against Christians and the opposition, the emperor ordered Seneca to commit suicide, which he did with dignity.

School of Humility and Temperance

The philosophy of Ancient Greece and Rome perceived Stoicism very positively and developed this direction until the very end of the era of antiquity. Another famous thinker of this school is Epictetus, the first philosopher of the ancient world, who was a slave by birth. This left an imprint on his views. Epictetus openly called for considering slaves to be the same people as everyone else, which was inaccessible to Greek philosophy. For him, stoicism was a way of life, a science that allows you to maintain self-control, not to seek pleasure and not be afraid of death. He declared that one should not wish for the best, but for what is already there. Then you will not be disappointed in life. Epictetus called his philosophical credo apathy, the science of dying. This he called obedience to the Logos (God). Humility with fate is a manifestation of the highest spiritual freedom. Emperor was a follower of Epictetus

Skeptics

Historians studying the development of human thought consider such a phenomenon as ancient philosophy to be a single entity. were similar in a number of respects. This is especially true for the period of late antiquity. For example, both Greek and Roman thought knew such a phenomenon as skepticism. This direction always arises at the time of the decline of major civilizations. In the philosophy of Ancient Rome, its representatives were Aeneside from Knossos (a student of Pyrrho), Agrippa, Sextus Empiricus. All of them were similar to each other in that they opposed any kind of dogmatism. Their main slogan was the assertion that all disciplines contradict each other and negate themselves, only skepticism accepts everything and at the same time questions it.

"On the Nature of Things"

Epicureanism was another popular school of ancient Rome. This philosophy became known primarily thanks to Titus Lucretius Carus, who lived in a rather turbulent time. He was an interpreter of Epicurus and in the poem "On the Nature of Things" in verse he outlined his philosophical system. First of all, he explained the doctrine of atoms. They are devoid of any properties, but their totality creates the qualities of things. The number of atoms in nature is always the same. Thanks to them, the transformation of matter occurs. Nothing comes from nothing. The worlds are multiple, they arise and perish according to the law of natural necessity, and atoms are eternal. The universe is infinite, while time exists only in objects and processes, and not by itself.

Epicureanism

Lucretius was one of the best thinkers and poets of ancient Rome. His philosophy aroused both admiration and indignation among his contemporaries. He constantly argued with representatives of other directions, especially with skeptics. Lucretius believed that they were wrong to consider science non-existent, because otherwise we would constantly think that a new sun rises every day. Meanwhile, we know perfectly well that this is one and the same luminary. Lucretius also criticized the Platonic idea of the transmigration of souls. He said that since the individual dies anyway, it doesn't matter where his spirit goes. Both the material and the psychic in a person are born, grow old and die. Lucretius also thought about the origin of civilization. He wrote that people first lived in a state of savagery until they recognized fire. And society arose as a result of an agreement between individuals. Lucretius preached a kind of Epicurean atheism and at the same time criticized Roman customs as too perverted.

Rhetoric

The most prominent representative of the eclecticism of Ancient Rome, whose philosophy is the subject of this article, was Marcus Tullius Cicero. He considered rhetoric to be the basis of all thinking. This politician and speaker tried to combine the Roman desire for virtue and the Greek art of philosophizing. It was Cicero who coined the concept of "humanitas", which we now widely use in political and public discourse. In the field of science, this thinker can be called an encyclopedist. As for morality and ethics, in this area he believed that each discipline goes to virtue in its own way. Therefore, everyone educated person should know any ways of cognition and accept them. And all sorts of everyday hardships are overcome by willpower.

Philosophical and religious schools

During this period, traditional ancient philosophy continued to develop. Ancient Rome well accepted the teachings of Plato and his followers. Especially at that time, philosophical and religious schools that united the West and the East were fashionable. The main questions that these teachings raised were the relationship and opposition of spirit and matter.

One of the most popular trends was neo-Pythagoreanism. It promoted the idea of a single God and a world full of contradictions. The Neo-Pythagoreans believed in the magic of numbers. A very famous figure of this school was Apollonius of Tyana, whom Apuleius ridiculed in his Metamorphoses. Among the Roman intellectuals, a doctrine dominated which tried to combine Judaism with Platonism. He believed that Jehovah gave birth to the Logos that created the world. No wonder Engels once called Philo "the uncle of Christianity."

The most fashionable trends

The main schools of philosophy of Ancient Rome include Neoplatonism. The thinkers of this trend created the doctrine of a whole system of mediators - emanations - between God and the world. The most famous Neoplatonists were Ammonius Sakkas, Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus. They professed polytheism. Philosophically, the Neoplatonists explored the process of creation as highlighting the new and eternal return. They considered God to be the cause, beginning, essence, and purpose of all things. The Creator pours out into the world, and therefore a person in a kind of frenzy can rise to Him. This state they called ecstasy. Close to Iamblichus were the eternal opponents of the Neoplatonists - the Gnostics. They believed that evil has an independent beginning, and all emanations are the result of the fact that creation began against the will of God.

The philosophy of Ancient Rome has been briefly described above. We see that the thought of this era was strongly influenced by its predecessors. These were Greek natural philosophers, Stoics, Platonists, Pythagoreans. Of course, the Romans somehow changed or developed the meaning of previous ideas. But it was their popularization that proved ultimately useful for ancient philosophy as a whole. After all, it was thanks to the Roman philosophers that medieval Europe met the Greeks and began to study them in the future.

Remark 1

Since the $3rd century, a situation has been developing in the Mediterranean in which Rome, becoming a strong power, sets the direction of ancient philosophy, replacing the ancient Greek.

The cities of continental Greece fall under the influence of Rome.

In Roman philosophy, Platonism comes to the fore, which dissolves into Epicureanism, skepticism and Stoicism.

Thanks to the expansionary policy of the Roman state, an extensive framework of Roman thinking is being formed. Particularly successful are political and legal concepts and teachings that have ancient Greek roots in their beginning.

common feature ancient roman philosophy is to highlight the ethics that are associated with a right and happy way of life.

Each school of this period develops its own idea of perfection and its own image of the sage. This image of the sage remains the same. The philosopher begins to be associated with the "strange" figure. Genuine philosophizing in everyday life acquires a specific character.

History of Stoicism

Ready-made works on a similar topic

Course work Roman philosophy 450 rub.
Essay Roman philosophy 270 rub.
Test Roman philosophy 230 rub.

There are three stages:

Ancient standing ($III-II$ centuries BC). Founder Zenon of Kitia.
Medium standing ($II-I$ centuries BC) Representatives: Panetius of Rhodes ($180-110$), Posidonius ($135-51$). It was they who brought Stoicism to Rome.
Late standing or Roman stoicism. This is purely ethical. In $I-II$ centuries. AD it existed simultaneously with the Judeo-Christian tradition, which influenced the formation of Christian doctrine.

Stoicism

The most prominent figures of Stoicism were Seneca Lucius Annaeus, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius . From Seneca, writings in Latin remained. Epictetus, who was a Greek slave, did not leave behind any written sources. Marcus Aurelius is a Roman emperor who wrote writings in Greek.

Stoicism can be called the "religion" of the Roman aristocracy. How to achieve happiness, and how does it relate to virtue? These questions confronted representatives of Stoicism.

Happiness is life in harmony with nature. Happiness is an individual phenomenon.

Human nature is perfect, therefore it contributes to the nature of the whole. It is possible to improve only the nature of a particular person, while simultaneously improving nature as a whole. The perception of truth is always connected with the transformation of oneself. It is impossible to see the truth without transforming your being.

The Stoics shared Aristotle's ideas about man as a polis and logos being. Logos is the unchanging foundation of everything. It also determines the perfection of the world and man. Man must live according to the logos. Man is a cosmopolitan. He must live according to the logos of nature. Cosmopolitanism is a concept originating in Stoicism. Polis is a copy of the universal state.

Judgments about the macrocosm and microcosm originate from the Stoics. The microcosm repeats the macrocosm.

Quintus Ennius argued that a Roman is one who values freedom, nobility, and piety above all else.

In Roman culture, human destiny is conceived as fatalism. A person actualizes it when he reaches his goal, when he becomes himself. This is piety and the highest manifestation of freedom. A man must serve his duty and fulfill his fatum without succumbing to passions. Any love lies outside the concepts of honor and duty. The European Renaissance draws ideas of humanism from Antiquity. The Roman concept of humanism is associated with a rethinking of the role of man, his cultivation.

The Romans for the first time discover the world as history.

The fear of the most important thing is the fear of death. It cannot be considered without comprehending nature. Accordingly, enjoyment is impossible without comprehending nature. The Stoics allowed suicide, because philosophy is dying. In striving for the eternal, we strive for death.

Epicureanism

Founder - Epicurus.

The school of Epicurus is the only example of atomism in Roman philosophy. One of the representatives of Epicureanism was Titus Lucretius Car. He correlates his teachings with those of Democritus and Epicurus.

This philosophical direction existed for quite a long time in Roman culture. This was a very influential direction until 313, before the advent of Christianity. Further, it was cruelly supplanted by representatives of Christianity.

Skepticism

Another no less important trend in ancient Roman philosophy. Representative - Aenesidemus of Knossos . His teaching was greatly influenced by the ancient Greek skepticism of Pyrrho. The main motive of Aenesidemus' skepticism was opposition to the dogmatism of early philosophical concepts.

He paid attention to the inconsistency of the theories of other philosophers. His skeptical views came to the conclusion that it is impossible to make any judgments about reality that are based on sensations. It is a doubt about the correctness of the most influential theories of all ancient philosophy. In the period of younger skepticism, the figure of Sextus Empiricus is singled out, who followed the same path of doubting both Greek philosophy and mathematics, rhetoric, and grammar.

Remark 2

Major attempts at skepticism– to prove that this direction is the original way of philosophy, not mixed with other philosophical tendencies.

Eclecticism acquires extensive significance in ancient Roman philosophy. This trend includes many significant personalities of political and Roman culture, such as Cicero. Representatives of this direction possessed a huge amount of knowledge. These are real encyclopedists of their era. Eclecticism was based on a collection, the union of different philosophical schools, which were united by a conceptual approach. Eclecticism was formed on the basis of academic philosophy, which embraced knowledge from the teachings about nature to the teachings about society.

In the late crisis of the Roman state, criticism of the rational knowledge of the world appears, which led to mysticism, with the strengthening of Christianization. The concept of Roman Neoplatonism begins to intensify. This is the last continuous flow in final stage the existence of the Roman Empire. This is a reflection on the decaying social relations.

After the subjugation of Greece to Rome in the II century. BC e. the teachings that appeared in Ancient Greece in the era of the collapse of the Athenian state, such as Epicureanism, Stoicism, and skepticism, are transferred to the ancient Roman soil. Over the course of five centuries, ancient Roman authors explained in detail and developed concepts that were often preserved only in fragments from the ancient Greek period, giving them the artistic completeness and practicality of the Roman soul.
The Romans, unlike the Greeks, were very active, and the contemplative nature of Greek philosophy disgusted them. “After all, all the merit of valor lies in activity,” Cicero drops this phrase as a matter of course.
The practical orientation of the Roman soul led to the fact that in ancient Rome they were interested not in dialectics and metaphysics, but mainly in ethics. The closest Greek philosopher to the Roman Empire, Epicurus, gained fame in ancient Rome, and he found followers. His views were very close to the political situation of ancient Rome during the collapse of the republic.

Lucretius

The popularity of Epicurus was promoted by the poem “On the Nature of Things” by Lucretius Cara (c. 99 - c. 55 BC) (Lucretius is a name, Car is a nickname), a native of Rome, who lived in the era of civil war between supporters of Sulla and Maria and uprisings Spartacus. Lucretius was not a theoretician, but a poet; even more of an Epicurean than a poet, because he himself claimed that he undertook to present the views of Epicurus in poetic form to facilitate their perception, following the principle that the main thing is pleasure, as, say, a patient is given bitter medicine along with honey, so that it would not be unpleasant to drink .
Lucretius explained many of the views of Epicurus, whose works have survived only in fragments. He wrote about atoms, which must have a different nature than visible things, and not be destroyed, so that something new constantly arises from them. Atoms are invisible, like the wind and the smallest dust particles, but things, people and even gods are formed from them (as from the letters of a word).
Nothing can come from nothing by the will of the gods. Everything comes from something and turns into something due to natural causes. In fact, all changes occur in the world from the movement of atoms, which is random, mechanical in nature and imperceptible to people.
Lucretius paints a grandiose picture of the evolution of the world as a process that proceeds without the participation of any supernatural forces. Life, in his opinion, arose by spontaneous generation from inanimate nature. The properties of all things depend on the characteristics of the atoms of which they are composed, and they also determine our sensations, with the help of which a person cognizes the world around us. Soul and spirit are also material and mortal.
The social life of people is the result of their initial free contract among themselves. The gods do not interfere in the lives of people, as evidenced by the existence of evil and the fact that punishment can befall the innocent, and the guilty remain intact.

Can't you see

That only nature cries out for one thing, and that only demands,

So that the body does not know suffering, but the thought enjoys

Feeling pleasant away from the consciousness of care and fear?

We thus see what corporeal nature needs

Only a little: that suffering removes everything.

Those who in life took the true mind as their helm,

He always possesses the wealth of moderate life;

His spirit is serene, and he lives, being content with little.

In such very precise words, Lucretius conveys the essence of the teachings of Epicurus.
Epicureanism is more suitable for free people who can climb into an ivory tower. And the slave? How can he live unnoticed and without fear to enjoy life? Every person in the era of the empire was under the heel of a tyrant. Under these conditions, the teaching of Epicurus loses its vitality, no longer fits the social circumstances of the Roman Empire, when a person is forced to confront the authorities.

STOICS

The views of the Roman Stoics differed from the Greek in tonality - the strength of their feelings and the expressiveness of poetry - and this was due to a change in social conditions. Gradually, the dignity of people was undermined and at the same time their confidence. The psychological margin of safety was exhausted, and the motives of doom began to prevail. B. Russell wrote that in bad times philosophers invent consolations. “We cannot be happy, but we can be good; let's imagine that as long as we are kind, it doesn't matter if we are unhappy. This doctrine is heroic and useful in a bad world.”
Among the Roman Stoics, the leading features are not pride, dignity, self-confidence and inner steadfastness, but rather weak b awn, feeling of insignificance, confusion, brokenness. Nor do they have the optimism of the Greeks. The concepts of evil and death come to the fore. The Roman Stoics demonstrate the steadfastness of despair and patience, through which the motive of spiritual freedom breaks through.

A famous Roman propagandist of Stoicism was Cicero (106 - 43 BC). They explained the basic Stoic concepts. "But the first task of justice is not to harm anyone, unless you are called to do so against the law." To live in harmony with nature means “to be always in harmony with virtue, and to choose everything else that corresponds to nature only if it does not contradict virtue” (i.e. wealth, health, etc.). More, however, Cicero is known as an orator.

SENECA

Cicero stood at the bedside of the republic. As a senator, he spoke with the subjects who elected him as a statesman. The next famous Stoic, Seneca (c. 5 BC -65 AD), came when the republic had already perished. He does not dream of its restoration, he resigned himself to her death and his sermon, not edifying, like Cicero's, but friendly, does not address the inhabitants of the state, but to an individual, a friend. “In lengthy arguments, written in advance and read in front of the people, there is a lot of noise, but there is no confidence. Philosophy is good advice, and no one will give advice publicly.” Seneca's voice is more tragic and hopeless, it has no illusions.
A Spaniard by origin, Seneca was born in Rome. From 48 AD e. he is the tutor of the future emperor Nero, from whom he accepted death. The works of Seneca are as difficult to parse as a fictional novel. Retelling does not seem to reveal anything new, but if you start reading, you fall under the charm of style. This is an author for all times and peoples, and if there are several books that everyone should read in their lives, this list includes Seneca's Moral Letters to Lucilius. Reading them is useful and delivers inexplicable spiritual pleasure.
From an aesthetic and moral point of view, the works of Seneca are impeccable. Even in Plato, highly artistic parts of the text are interspersed with quite ordinary ones. In Seneca, everything is carefully finished and combined into one whole, although we are dealing with a series of letters, apparently really written to the addressee at different times. The unity of the work gives the integrity of the author's worldview. The moral preaching of Seneca does not sin with edification, cheap slogans, but subtly leads and convinces. We see in the author a combination of pride, valor, nobility and mercy, which we do not find either in Christian missionaries, who are distinguished by a different set of virtues, or in the philosophers of modern times.
In the work of Seneca, the motive of suffering prevails, and confidence in the possibility of getting rid of them goes out, leaving hope only for oneself. “We are not able to change ... the order of things, but we are able to gain greatness of spirit, worthy of a good man, and steadfastly endure all the vicissitudes of the case without arguing with nature.” Outside of himself, man is powerless, but he can be master of himself. Look for support in your own soul, which is God in man, Seneca advises.
Seneca contrasts external pressure with individual moral self-improvement and the struggle, first of all, with one's own vices. “I didn’t judge anything but myself. And why do you come to me in the hope of benefit. Anyone who expects to find help here is mistaken. Not a doctor, but a patient lives here.”
To gain independence from the despotic forces in the power of which a person is, Seneca proposes to become indifferent to fate, not to follow, like cattle, the leaders of the herd and views that find many followers; but live as required by reason and duty, i.e. by nature. "To live happily and to live according to nature are one and the same." “What is freedom, you ask? Do not be a slave to circumstances, or to inevitability, or to chance; bring fortune down one step with yourself; and as soon as I realize that I can do more than she, she will be powerless over me.
Understanding slavery in the broadest sense and fighting against it, thereby reflecting the growing anti-slavery sentiment and bringing the death of the slave system closer, Seneca believes that every person is potentially free, in a soul that cannot be given into slavery.
Seneca's morality is distinguished by mercy, philanthropy, compassion, pity, reverent attitude towards other people, benevolence, gentleness. In an all-powerful empire, the life of a philosopher is not safe, and this was fully experienced by Seneca, who was accused by his former student Nero of plotting against him. Although no evidence was found, Seneca, without waiting for arrest, opened his veins, remaining faithful to his views. It is not so important whether Seneca participated in the conspiracy against Nero or not. The very fact that he took part in state affairs indicates that he was preparing his own death. He is guilty of only one.
Seneca is the pinnacle of the moral and philosophical thought of mankind. He managed to synthesize everything of value that was in ancient ethics, not excluding the teachings of the opponent of the Stoics, Epicurus. He could agree that absolute truth is impossible, but for him this question is not important, but the question “how to live?”. This question cannot be saved by paradoxes, it must be solved here and now.
Seneca combined the fate of the three great ancient Greek philosophers. He was the educator of the future emperor, like Aristotle (although, unlike him, he believed that a virtuous person could be happy even under torture); wrote as artistically as Plato, and died, like Socrates, in the conviction that, according to the establishment of nature, "it is more unfortunate to bring evil than to suffer."

EPICTETUS

Epictetus (c. 50 - c. 140 AD) - the first of the famous philosophers who was a slave. But for the Stoics, who recognize all people as equal, this is not surprising. The owner, who mocked him, broke his leg, and then released him - a cripple. Together with other philosophers, he was subsequently expelled from Rome and opened his own school in Nicopolis (Epirus). His students were aristocrats, and the poor, and slaves. In his school of moral perfection, Epictetus taught only ethics, which he called the soul of philosophy.
The first thing the student needed was to realize his own weakness and impotence, which Epictetus called the beginning of philosophy. The Stoics, following the Cynics, believed that philosophy is medicine for the soul, but in order for a person to want to take medicine, he must understand that he is sick. "If you want to be good, first be imbued with the conviction that you are bad."
The first stage of philosophical education is the rejection of false knowledge. Having begun to study philosophy, a person experiences a state of shock, when, under the influence of true knowledge, he seems to go crazy, abandoning his usual ideas. After that, new knowledge becomes the feeling and will of a person.
Three things are necessary, according to Epictetus, to become virtuous: theoretical knowledge, internal self-improvement, practical exercises (“moral gymnastics”). Daily self-examination, constant attention to yourself, your thoughts, feelings and actions are required; vigilant surveillance of oneself, as of the worst enemy. It is necessary to get rid of passions gradually, but consistently. You are used to being angry every day, try to be angry every other day, and so on.
The two basic principles of Epictetus are: "Withstand and refrain." Steadfastly withstand all the external difficulties that fall upon you, and whatever happens, take it easy. “Only one road leads to freedom: contempt for what does not depend on us”2. Refrain from any manifestation of your own passions, remembering that yours is only the mind and soul, but not the body. “Take my body, my property, my honor, my family - but no one can have my thoughts and willtake away, nothing can suppress them. "And you, although you are not yet Socrates, must, however, live like a man who wishes to become Socrates."
We also find in Epictetus the “golden rule of ethics”: “The position that you cannot tolerate, do not create for others. If you do not want to be a slave, do not tolerate slavery around you.

MARC AURELIUS

Unusually for a philosopher, but completely opposite to that of Epictetus, the social position of Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 AD) is emperor. Nevertheless, his pessimism and courage of despair are just as expressive.
Shaky became not only the position of the individual, especially the slave, but also the empire. It was time for her decline. This is not the pessimism of a slave or a courtier, but the pessimism of an emperor and, therefore, an empire. Marcus Aurelius had all the power, all the "bread and circuses", but they did not please him. Strange as it may seem, it is precisely during the period of the maximum power of the empire that a person inside it feels most unprotected and insignificant, crushed and helpless. The stronger the state, the weaker the individual. And not only a slave or a courtier, but an unlimited ruler himself.
An important place in the philosophy of Marcus Aurelius is occupied by the requirement to always be the same in response to the influence of external circumstances, which means constant proportionality, internal consistency of the mental disposition and all life. “To be like a cliff against which a wave is constantly beating; he stands, and the heated wave subsides around him.
We meet similar thoughts in Seneca. “Trust me, it's a great thing to always play the same role. But no one but the sage does this; all others are many-sided. The lack of integrity and wholeness is the reason that people, entangled in the change of masks, are split. And integrity is needed, because the person himself is a part of the world whole, without which he cannot exist, like an arm or a leg separately from the rest of the body. The idea of the unity of everything in the universe is constantly repeated by Marcus Aurelius.
That was the only case in world history when a state was ruled by a philosopher and the visible social pinnacle of the triumph of philosophy was reached. It would seem that it was Marcus Aurelius who would try to create a state on those philosophical principles that were developed in philosophy, starting with Socrates and Plato. But Marcus Aurelius not only did not begin cardinal transformations (although as an emperor he had every opportunity for this - not like Plato), but did not even turn to people with philosophical sermons that had become fashionable at that time, but only kept a diary - for myself, not for publication. This is an extreme degree of disappointment in the possibility of improving the situation. One of Plato's desires for a philosopher to rule the state came true, but Marcus Aurelius understood how difficult, if not hopeless, it was to try to fix people and social relations. In the self-belittling of Socrates there was irony, in the self-belittling of Seneca and Marcus Aurelius there was genuine grief.
Teaching people how to live, the former slave Epictetus, the philosopher on the throne Marcus Aurelius, the statesman and writer Seneca, comparable in artistic skill only to Plato, and closer to us than Plato in the poignancy of his writings, are the most significant names of Roman stoicism.
All three were united by the conviction that there is a reasonable need for submission to the universal higher principle, and only the mind, and not the body, should be considered one's own. The difference is that, according to Seneca, in the external world everything is subject to fate; according to Epictetus - the will of the gods; according to Marcus Aurelius - the world mind.
The similarity between the Roman Stoics and the Epicureans, as well as between the Greeks, consisted in the orientation towards life by nature, isolation and self-sufficiency, serenity and dispassion, in the idea of the materiality of the gods and the soul, the mortality of man and his return to the world whole. But the understanding of nature by the Epicureans as the material Universe remained, and by the Stoics - as the mind; justice as a social contract - by the Epicureans and as a duty to the whole world - by the Stoics; recognition of free will by the Epicureans and higher order and predestination by the Stoics; the idea of the linearity of the development of the world among the Epicureans and the cyclical development of the Stoics; orientation towards personal friendship among the Epicureans and participation in public affairs among the Stoics. For the Stoics, the source of happiness is reason, and the basic concept is virtue; for the Epicureans, feeling and pleasure, respectively.

SEXTES EMPIRICUS

Skeptics opposed the Stoics and Epicureans in Rome, as in Greece, and their importance increased as the creative potential of philosophy weakened. Skepticism is the inevitable companion of rational wisdom, as atheism is the companion of religious faith, and it only waits for the moment of its weakening, as atheism for the moment of weakening of faith.
Fragments of works remained from ancient Greek skeptics. Sextus Empiricus (end of the 2nd - beginning of the 3rd century AD) gave a complete teaching with a detailed criticism of representatives of other directions. He did the same generalizing work that Lucretius did with Epicurus.
In the idea of the relativity of good and evil, Sextus finds his advantages. The rejection of the notion of the common good makes a person more resistant to public opinion, but in the absence of the main individual goal that subjugates all others, a person in the hustle and bustle of circumstances loses self-confidence and gets tired of fulfilling small goals that often contradict each other and deprive life of meaning. The skeptic himself, as a philosopher, must regard wisdom as a blessing.
Sextus gives an exhaustive summary of skeptical conclusions and teachings. We find in him logical paradoxes like "I am a liar", indicating that thinking, in principle, cannot be strictly logical and avoid contradictions. "I'm a liar," the man declares. If so, then his statement cannot be true, i.e. he is not a liar. If he does not lie, then his words are true, and, therefore, he is a liar.
We meet with Sextus paradoxes associated with qualitative changes in things, for example, the “grain and heap” paradox attributed to the philosopher of the Megarian school Eubulides from Miletus (4th century BC): “If one grain does not make a heap, and two do not make heaps, and three, etc., then there will never be a heap. Here we can say about the lack of understanding of what is obvious to modern science - the emergence of new properties in more complex things. Denying them, Sextus proves that if a part does not have any property (the letter does not denote a thing), then the whole (word) does not have this property either. Sextus can be corrected according to modern science, but the cornerstones of skepticism remain.
Diogenes Laertes considered skepticism to be a direction penetrating all ancient philosophy. The ancient Greeks paid great attention to logical difficulties, because for them rational arguments were of the greatest importance, and paradoxes were attracted by the possibility of resolving them, which sometimes turned out to be unsuccessful.
However, if everything is denied, then it is impossible to talk about anything. This forces one to make positive assertions. If I don't know if I know something, then maybe I do know something? Consistent skepticism opens the way to faith.
It is the merit of the skeptics to try to determine the limits of rational thinking in order to find out what can and cannot be expected from philosophy. Dissatisfied with the framework in which the mind functions, they turned to religion. Undermining the authority of reason, the skeptics thus prepared the offensive of Christianity, for which faith is higher than reason. Despite the efforts of Epicurus and the Stoics, it turned out that the fear of death could not be overcome by reasonable arguments. The spread of Christianity was caused by the entire logic of the development of ancient culture. People want happiness not only here, but also after death. Neither Epicurus nor the Stoics nor the Skeptics promised this. Faced with a dilemma: reason or faith, people rejected reason and preferred faith, in this case Christian. Turning away from rational wisdom, a younger and more self-confident Christianity defeated ancient philosophy. The latter reposed like a wise old man giving way to a new generation.
From the end of the 2nd century Christianity takes over the minds of many people. We can say that Christianity defeated the most powerful empire in the history of mankind, and the only emperor-philosopher Marcus Aurelius in history suffered a crushing spiritual defeat. Why did this happen? The weakening of the creative potential of ancient philosophy, the change in the spiritual climate and social conditions of the then society led to the triumph of Christianity. Philosophy was first overthrown, and then used for the needs of religion, turning into the servant of theology for 1500 years.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

Autonomous non-profit organization of higher professional education "Russian Academy of Entrepreneurship"

in philosophy

on the topic: "Philosophy of Ancient Rome"

Completed by a student

Pirogova O.V.

Scientific director

Shemyakina E. M.

Moscow 2012

Introduction

After the subjugation of Greece to Rome in the II century. BC e. The Roman Empire began to adopt the philosophical teachings that appeared in ancient Greece in the era of the collapse of the Athenian state. Unlike Greek philosophy, Roman philosophy was predominantly ethical in nature. The main task Roman philosophy is not the study of the essence of things, but the problem of achieving the highest good, happiness, the development of rules for life.

This paper will consider some of the main philosophical trends established in Rome, such as Stoicism, Epicureanism and Skepticism, as well as their prominent representatives - Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Titus Lucretius Carus and Aenesidemus.

1. Stoicism

stoicism skepticism rome philosophy

Stoicism is the teaching of one of the most influential philosophical schools of antiquity, founded around 300 BC. Zeno from China; its name comes from the "Painted Portico" - "Stoi" in Athens, where Zenon taught. The history of Stoicism is traditionally divided into three periods: Early (Zeno III-II centuries BC), Middle (Panaetius, Posidonius, Hekaton II-I centuries BC) and Late (or Roman) Stoicism (Seneca , Marcus Aurelius I-II centuries AD).

The doctrine of the Stoics is usually divided into three parts: logic, physics and ethics. Their comparison of philosophy with an orchard is well known: logic corresponds to the fence that protects it, physics is a growing tree, and ethics is the fruit.

Logics- a fundamental part of stoicism; its task is to substantiate the necessary and universal laws of reason as the laws of knowledge, being, and philosophizing as a strict "scientific" procedure.

Physics. The Stoics represent the world as a living organism. According to Stoicism, everything that exists is corporeal, and differs only in the degree of “roughness” or “subtlety” of matter. Force is the subtlest matter. The power that governs the world as a whole is God. All matter is but a variation of this divine force. Things and events are repeated after each periodic ignition and purification of the cosmos.

Ethics. All people are citizens of space as a world state; Stoic cosmopolitanism equalized all people in the face of the world law: free and slaves, citizens and barbarians, men and women. According to the Stoics, every moral action is self-preservation and self-affirmation and increases the common good. All sins and immoral acts are self-destruction, the loss of one's own human nature. Right desires, deeds and deeds are a guarantee of human happiness, for this you need to develop your personality in every possible way, not be submissive to fate, not bow before any force.

Lucius Annaeus Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

Seneca was from Cordoba, he attached great importance to the practical side of philosophy, ethics and explored the question of how to live a virtuous life without delving into the theoretical study of the nature of virtue. He sees philosophy as a means of acquiring virtue. “Let our words bring not pleasure, but benefit - the patient is looking for the wrong doctor who speaks eloquently.”

In his theoretical views, Seneca adhered to the materialism of the ancient Stoics, but in practice he believed in the transcendence of God. He believed that fate is not a blind element. She has a mind, a piece of which is present in every person. Any misfortune is an occasion for virtuous self-improvement. The philosopher proposes to strive for high courage, steadfastly enduring everything that fate sends us, and surrender to the will of the laws of nature.

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121 BC – 180 BC)

Roman emperor from 161 to 180 AD. e., in reflections "To himself" says that "the only thing that is in the power of man is his thoughts." "Look into your gut! There, inside, there is a source of goodness, which is able to beat without drying up, if you constantly dig into it. He understands the world as eternally current and changeable. The main goal of human aspirations should be the achievement of virtue, that is, the obedience to "reasonable laws of nature in accordance with human nature." Marcus Aurelius recommends: “Calm thought with everything that comes from outside, and justice with everything that is realized at your own discretion, that is, your desire and action, let them be in actions that are generally useful, for this is the essence in accordance with your nature.”

Marcus Aurelius is the last representative of ancient Stoicism.

2. Epicureanism

Epicureanism was the only materialistic philosophy in ancient Rome. The materialistic trend in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy was named after its founder, Epicurus. At the end of the 2nd c. BC e. there are followers of Epicurus among the Romans, the most prominent of which was Titus Lucretius Car.

Titus Lucretius Carus (95 BC - 55 BC)

Lucretius fully identifies his views with the teachings of Epicurus. In his work “On the Nature of Things”, he masterfully explains, proves and propagates the views of the early representatives of the atomistic doctrine, consistently defends the basic principles of atomism both from earlier and contemporary opponents, giving at the same time the most complete and logically ordered interpretation of atomistic philosophy. At the same time, in many cases he develops and deepens the thoughts of Epicurus. Lucretius considers atoms and emptiness to be the only thing that exists. Where there is emptiness, so-called space, there is no matter; and where matter is stretched out, there is no emptiness and space in no way.

He considers the soul to be material, a special combination of air and heat. It flows through the whole body and is formed by the finest and smallest atoms.

Lucretius tries to explain the emergence of society in a natural way. He says that originally people lived in a "semi-savage state", not knowing fire and dwelling. Only the development of material culture leads to the fact that the human herd is gradually turning into society. Like Epicurus, he believed that society (law, laws) arises as a product of mutual agreement of people: “Neighbors then began to unite in friendship, no longer wanting to cause lawlessness and enmity, and children and the female gender were taken under protection, showing gestures and awkward sounds that everyone should have sympathy for the weak. Although consent could not be universally accepted, the best and most of fulfilled the contract faithfully.

The materialism of Lucretius also has its atheistic consequences. Lucretius not only excludes the gods from a world in which everything has natural causes, but also opposes any belief in gods. He criticizes the concept of life after death and all other religious myths. Shows that belief in gods arises in a completely natural way, as a product of fear and ignorance of natural causes.

Epicureanism remained in Roman society for a comparatively long time. However, when in 313 AD. e. Christianity became the official state religion, a stubborn and ruthless struggle began against Epicureanism, and in particular against the ideas of Lucretius Cara, which, in the end, led to the gradual decline of this philosophy.

3. Skepticism

Skepticism is based on a position based on the doubt that there is any reliable criterion of truth. Skepticism is contradictory in nature, it prompted some to an in-depth search for truth, while others to militant ignorance and immorality. The founder of skepticism was Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360 - 270 BC).

Pyrrho and his philosophical views

According to the teachings of Pyrrho, a philosopher is a person who strives for happiness. It, in his opinion, consists only in imperturbable calm, combined with the absence of suffering.

Anyone who wants to achieve happiness must answer three questions: 1) what things are made of; 2) how they should be treated; 3) what benefit we are able to get from our attitude towards them.

Pyrrho believed that no answer could be given to the first question, nor could it be argued that something definite exists. Moreover, any statement about any subject can be countered with equal right by a statement that contradicts it.

From the recognition of the impossibility of unambiguous statements about things, Pyrrho deduced the answer to the second question: the philosophical attitude to things consists in refraining from any judgments. This answer predetermines the answer to the third question: the benefit and advantage arising from the abstinence from all kinds of judgments consists in equanimity or serenity. This condition, called ataraxia, based on the rejection of knowledge, is considered by skeptics as the highest degree of bliss.

The efforts of Pyrrho, aimed at fettering human curiosity with doubt and slowing down the movement along the path of the progressive development of knowledge, were in vain. The future, which was presented to skeptics as a terrible punishment for believing in the omnipotence of knowledge, nevertheless came, and none of its warnings succeeded in stopping it.

4. Neoplatonism

Neoplatonism developed in the III-V centuries AD. e., in the last centuries of the existence of the Roman Empire. It is the last integral philosophical direction that arose in the period of antiquity. Neoplatonism is formed in the same social setting as Christianity. Its founder was Ammonius Sakkas (175-242), and the most prominent representative was Plotinus (205-270).

Plotinus and his philosophical views

Plotinus believed that the basis of everything that exists is a supersensible, supernatural, overreasonable divine principle. All forms of life depend on it. Plotinus declares this principle to be absolute being and says of it that it is unknowable. This only true being is comprehensible only by penetrating into the very center of pure thinking, which becomes possible only when thought is "rejected" - ecstasy. Everything else that exists in the world is derived from this only true being.

Nature, according to Plotinus, is created in such a way that the divine principle (light) penetrates matter (darkness). Plotinus even creates a certain gradation of existences from the external (real, true) to the lowest, subordinate (inauthentic). At the top of this gradation stands the divine principle, then the divine soul, and below all, nature.

Plotinus devotes much attention to the soul. It is for him a certain transition from the divine to the material. The soul is something alien to the material, bodily and external in relation to them.

Conclusion

In general, the philosophy of Ancient Rome had a huge impact on subsequent philosophical thought, culture, and the development of human civilization. The philosophy of Ancient Rome contained the beginnings of the main types of philosophical worldview, which were developed in all subsequent centuries. Many of the problems that ancient philosophers pondered have not lost their relevance to this day. The study of ancient philosophy gives us not only valuable information about the results of the reflections of outstanding thinkers, but also contributes to the development of more refined philosophical thinking.

Bibliography

1. F. Copleston “History of Philosophy. Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. T. I.”: Centerpolygraph; Moscow; 2003

2. F. Copleston “History of Philosophy. Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. T. II.”: Centerpolygraph; Moscow; 2003

Other information resources

3. Materials of the curriculum of the College of Entrepreneurship No. 15. Lecture on the Philosophy of Ancient Rome

Hosted on Allbest.ru

...