Summary of the Hellenistic Period in Philosophy

Decline of Classical Philosophy Misconception: Earlier interpretations suggested that

Aristotle's death in 322 BC marked the start of a philosophical decline, culminating in
Bertrand Russell’s assertion that it took two millennia to produce a philosopher of Aristotle’s
caliber. This view overlooks the significant philosophical developments during the Hellenistic
period, which saw the rise of influential schools such as the Epicureans, Stoics, and
Skeptics.
Context of the Hellenistic Period: The Hellenistic period followed significant political and
social changes after Alexander the Great’s death in 323 BC and the decline of Athenian
dominance. Despite these changes, philosophy continued to evolve and did not decline,
though the works of Hellenistic philosophers have largely survived only in fragments and
reports by later authors.
Shift in Philosophical Focus: Philosophy in the Hellenistic period took a more practical and
inward-looking turn compared to the Classical period. While Plato and Aristotle engaged in
practical philosophy, they also pursued theoretical knowledge for its own sake. In contrast,
Hellenistic philosophers emphasized practical applications of philosophy to achieve a good
life.
Major Hellenistic Schools:
1. Epicureans:
o Key Thinker: Epicurus (341–270 BC)
o Core Beliefs:
 Happiness is achieved through pleasure, defined as the absence of
pain.
 The universe consists solely of atoms and void, rejecting Plato’s Forms
and Aristotle’s anti-hedonism.
 Happiness is obtained by understanding the physical universe and
minimizing unnecessary desires.
o Practical Advice: Seek simple pleasures and avoid desires for fame,
immortality, and luxury, which are seen as burdensome and unnecessary.
2. Stoics:
o Key Thinkers: Zeno of Citium, Chrysippus
o Core Beliefs:
 Virtue is the sole good; other things like pleasure, wealth, and health
are not intrinsically valuable.
 True happiness comes from living in accordance with nature and
accepting the world as it is, without futile resistance.
 They developed sophisticated theories in logic and epistemology to
understand and accept the world correctly.
o Practical Advice: Focus on virtue and develop resilience against external
circumstances beyond one’s control.
 3. Skeptics:
o Core Beliefs:
 Skeptics challenge the possibility of certain knowledge and assert that
we cannot definitively know how things are beyond appearances.
 True serenity and tranquility come from suspending judgment and
living according to appearances alone, rather than claiming
knowledge.
o Practical Advice: Embrace a life of tranquility by relinquishing dogmatic
claims and focusing on appearances.
Conclusion: Hellenistic philosophy was characterized by its practical orientation and
sophisticated theoretical developments. Each school offered a unique approach to achieving
a good life, emphasizing the importance of understanding desires, beliefs, and emotions.
Their contributions continue to be significant in the study of philosophy, particularly in logic,
epistemology, and philosophy of mind.

1- Epicureanism
Epicureanism, a prominent Hellenistic philosophy, is notable for its organized structure and
inclusive nature. Founded by Epicurus, who established the Garden—a communal space for
philosophical discussion—Epicureanism was unique in its openness, admitting women,
slaves, courtesans, and individuals from various social standings.
Key Aspects of Epicureanism:
1. Inclusivity and Organization:
o Epicurus's Garden was a hub for philosophical study and practice.
o His school embraced a diverse group of followers, reflecting his belief in the
equal capacity for pleasure among all people.
2. Core Doctrines:
o Primary Sources: Epicurus's writings are mostly lost, but we have three key
letters addressing physical theory, ethics, and astronomy, as well as
collections like the Principal Beliefs and Vatican Sayings. Lucretius's poem,
On the Nature of Things, serves as a significant source, though written 300
years later.
o Fear of Death: Epicurus's philosophy emphasizes overcoming the irrational
fear of death. He argues that death is irrelevant to us as we cannot experience
it; it is a state of non-being which is painless and thus should not cause
distress.
o Materialism: Epicureanism posits that everything, including humans, is made
up of atoms and void. When we die, our atoms disperse, and we cease to
exist, which makes fearing death unreasonable.
Summary of Key Points:
 Philosophical Community: Epicureanism was organized around the Garden,
integrating people from various social classes.
 Epistemology and Ethics: The core teachings focus on materialism and the
irrationality of fearing death.
 Sources: Although Epicurus's original works are lost, his core ideas are preserved
through letters, summaries, and Lucretius's poetry.
Epicureanism advocates for a life focused on attaining pleasure and peace of mind by
eliminating unnecessary fears, especially the fear of death, which Epicurus views as an
impediment to well-being.

Epicurean hedonism is central to Epicurus's philosophy, emphasizing pleasure as the

ultimate good, but in a refined and disciplined manner. Here’s a summary highlighting the key
aspects:
Core Concepts of Epicurean Hedonism
1. Rejection of Eudaimonism:
o Epicurus rejects Aristotle's concept of eudaimonia (flourishing) that is based
on objective, virtue-centered notions of happiness.
o Instead, Epicurus's hedonism focuses on personal pleasure as the primary
good.
2. Pleasure and Pain:
o Nature of Pleasure: Epicurus believes pleasure is derived from bodily
sensations. However, not all pleasures are to be pursued indiscriminately.
o Avoidance of Pain: True pleasure involves minimizing pain and disturbance
in both body and mind.
3. Types of Desires:
o Natural vs. Non-Natural: Desires are categorized as natural or non-natural.
Natural desires can be further divided into necessary and unnecessary.
o Necessary Desires: These include basic needs like food and water. Epicurus
argues that simple pleasures, such as barley cakes and water, can be as
satisfying as extravagant pleasures when needs are met.
4. Austerity Over Extravagance:
o Epicurean hedonism advocates for a modest lifestyle. Pursuing simple
pleasures reduces the risk of long-term pain associated with extravagant or
unnecessary desires.
o Simplicity: Simple pleasures are easier to attain and more consistent in
providing satisfaction compared to complex or luxury desires.
5. Practical Application:
 o To maximize pleasure, one should focus on natural and necessary desires,
avoiding the pursuit of non-natural desires which can lead to frustration and
dependence on external factors.
o Desires for things like luxury or fame create conditions where one's happiness
becomes contingent on external factors beyond one's control, leading to
potential dissatisfaction.
6. Fearing Death:
o Death as Non-Problematic: Epicurus argues that fear of death is irrational
because death is a state of non-being, which cannot be experienced and thus
should not be feared.
o Materialism and Death: By understanding that we are material beings
composed of atoms, we realize that after death, we simply cease to exist, and
there is no consciousness to experience suffering.
7. Philosophical Therapy:
o Study of Nature: Epicurus encourages the study of nature to dispel fears and
misconceptions about death and existence. This involves understanding the
material nature of the universe and ourselves.
o Materialism: Lucretius's argument reinforces that both mind and body are
material, and thus their interaction is purely physical, supporting the view that
fear of death is baseless.
Summary
Epicurean hedonism advocates for the pursuit of pleasure in a rational, restrained way. It
promotes a lifestyle that seeks simple and natural pleasures while avoiding the complications
and dissatisfaction of excessive desires. Central to this philosophy is the belief in the material
nature of the universe and the irrationality of fearing death, emphasizing that true happiness
comes from understanding and accepting our material existence.

Epicurus, addressing the fear of death, argues that understanding death correctly should
remove our fear of it. Here’s a summary of his arguments and their implications:
Epicurus' Argument Against the Fear of Death
1. Nature of Death:
o Death is the end of sensation. Since pleasure and pain are based on
sensation, death itself cannot be painful or pleasurable.
o We should accustom ourselves to thinking that death is nothing to us because
while we are alive, death is not present, and when death is present, we no
longer exist.
2. Rational Fear:
o It is rational to fear pains that are present or imminent but irrational to fear
pains or states that will occur after our death, since we will not exist to
experience them.
 o Epicurus argues that fearing a non-existent state (death) is as irrational as
fearing past non-existence before our birth.
3. Materialism and Symmetry:
o Epicurus and Lucretius argue that our pre-natal non-existence and post-
mortem non-existence are symmetrical. Just as we do not regret or fear our
pre-natal non-existence, we should not fear our post-mortem non-existence.
4. Criticisms and Challenges:
o Future vs. Past: Critics point out that unlike the past, the future remains open
and can be influenced. This openness might make the prospect of not existing
in the future feel different from not existing in the past.
o Value Beyond Pleasure: If one values life beyond just subjective pleasure,
the loss of life might be seen as a loss of something valuable, challenging the
Epicurean hedonistic view.
Key Points
1. Death as Non-Existence: Epicurus argues that death is simply the absence of
sensation and thus cannot be experienced as pain or pleasure.
2. Rational Fear and Anticipation: It’s rational to fear current, unavoidable pains but
irrational to fear future pains we cannot experience after death.
3. Symmetry Argument: The argument from symmetry suggests that since we do not
lament our pre-natal non-existence, we should not fear our post-mortem non-
existence.
4. Challenges to Hedonism: Critics argue that the future’s potential for change and the
intrinsic value of life itself (beyond just pleasure) may justify lamenting or fearing non-
existence.
Epicurus’ position aims to alleviate the fear of death by redefining it as a non-existent state
that cannot affect us. However, critiques question whether this perspective adequately
addresses all aspects of our relationship with life and death.

2-The Stoics: Core Beliefs and Their Concept of

Virtue
Introduction to Stoicism
Stoicism, founded by Zeno of Citium around 300 BC, presents a value monism distinct from
Epicureanism. While Epicureans prioritize pleasure as the sole good, Stoics assert that virtue
alone constitutes the ultimate good. This virtue-centric worldview is integral to their
philosophical system, which spans several centuries and is represented by a range of
thinkers, including Zeno, Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Epictetus, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius.
Development of Stoic Thought
Early Stoics and their Contributions:
  Zeno of Citium: Founder of Stoicism, known for introducing the idea that living in
accordance with nature and virtue is the ultimate goal.
 Cleanthes: Succeeded Zeno and composed the famous "Hymn to Zeus," which
emphasizes the universe's rational order.
 Chrysippus: Regarded as a key figure in Stoicism, contributed extensively, though
his original writings are mostly lost. His work solidified many Stoic doctrines.
The evolution of Stoic thought continued beyond the Early Stoa, with significant contributions
from later Stoics like Epictetus, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius, each adapting and expanding
upon earlier ideas in varying social and historical contexts.
Core Tenets of Stoicism
1. Value Monism:
 Virtue as the Sole Good: For Stoics, virtue is the only true good. All other values,
including pleasure and material wealth, are considered indifferent or secondary.
2. Teleological Perspective:
 Living According to Nature: Stoics believe that human life’s ultimate goal is to live
in harmony with nature, which entails living in accordance with virtue. This teleological
view sees nature as rational and purposeful, guided by "right reason" or "orthos
logos."
3. The Stoic System:
 Interconnectedness of Philosophy: Stoic philosophy is divided into three main
branches:
o Logic: The framework for reasoning and argumentation.
o Physics: The study of the natural world and its rational structure.
o Ethics: The application of understanding nature to human behavior.
The Stoics use metaphors such as the animal and the egg to illustrate the
interconnectedness of these branches. Each part is essential to the whole, with ethics being
central to the application of philosophical principles.
The Concept of Oikeiôsis
1. Oikeiôsis (Moral Development):
 Definition: Oikeiôsis is the process of moral development, where individuals
recognize and accept their place and role in the natural order. It starts with basic self-
preservation and expands outward to encompass family, community, and humanity.
2. Stages of Oikeiôsis:
 Initial Self-Concern: Infants instinctively seek their own preservation, reflecting their
innate drive towards self-interest and good.
 Expansion of Concern: As individuals mature, their circle of concern expands from
self to family, community, and ultimately, all humanity.
3. The Cosmopolitan Ideal:
  Ultimate Goal: The mature Stoic sage achieves a state of oikeiôsis by recognizing
the interconnectedness of all humans and aligning their actions with universal reason.
This cosmopolitan outlook sees oneself as a citizen of the universe.

Stoic Philosophy and Rationality

1. The Role of Rationality:
 Central to Good: Rationality is not just a means to understand nature but is itself the
highest good. The Stoic sage embodies perfect rationality and harmony with the
universe’s rational structure.
2. Acceptance of the World:
 Stoic Equanimity: Stoics advocate for accepting the world’s nature and events with
equanimity. They believe that while we cannot control external events, we can control
our responses to them, aligning our reactions with rational understanding.
3. Practical Application:
 Dealing with Adversity: For instance, if one misses a flight due to unforeseen
circumstances, a Stoic would focus on rational acceptance rather than frustration.
The Stoic sage understands that the external event is beyond their control and
chooses a response in harmony with nature.
Conclusion
Stoicism offers a rigorous framework for understanding virtue and living a good life. Its
emphasis on rationality, interconnectedness, and living in accordance with nature provides a
comprehensive approach to ethical and philosophical inquiry. By expanding the concept of
oikeiôsis, Stoicism guides individuals from basic self-preservation to a universal, rational
harmony with the cosmos.
Stoic View on Freedom and Determinism
1. Determinism and Freedom:
o Determinism: The Stoics believe that the universe is fully determined; every
event has a cause, and we are part of this causal nexus.
o Freedom: Despite this determinism, Stoics argue that freedom is found in our
power to assent or withhold assent to propositions.
2. Cicero’s Challenge (on Fate):
o Argument: Cicero suggests that if our fate determines outcomes (e.g.,
recovery from illness), then our actions (e.g., calling a doctor) are futile. This
parallels the argument that studying is pointless if outcomes (e.g., final exam
results) are fated.
o Stoic Response: The Stoics reject this view, arguing that determinism doesn’t
imply fatalism. They maintain that our actions can influence outcomes, and
thus, studying or calling a doctor can still be meaningful.
3. Determinism vs. Fatalism:
 o Determinism: Every event is caused, but not every event is fated. We can
influence some outcomes through our actions.
o Fatalism: The belief that events will happen regardless of our actions, which
the Stoics do not endorse.
4. Against Stoic Freedom (ASF) Argument:
o Premise: If decisions to assent or withhold assent are causally determined,
then we cannot influence them, thus questioning our freedom.
o Stoic Compatibilism: The Stoics, particularly Chrysippus, argue that while
our actions are determined, our nature and rationality play a role. Assent is not
entirely externally controlled; we contribute through our rational nature.
5. Chrysippus’ Cylinder Example:
o Analogy: A cylinder rolls due to its nature once pushed, just as our assent
moves through our nature once prompted.
o Point: The cylinder’s rolling depends on its nature, not just the initial push.
Similarly, our assent depends on our rational nature, not just external causes.
6. Types of Causes:
o Principal Cause: The main cause of an event (e.g., towing a car).
o Contributing Cause: Factors that help but are not sufficient alone (e.g.,
passengers pushing the car).
o Stoic View: Our assent is a contributing cause; we play a significant role in
our decisions, even if not the sole cause.
7. Compatibility of Determinism and Freedom:
o Stoic Position: They believe in compatibilism, where determinism and
freedom can coexist. The Stoics argue that our rational nature and ability to
assent contribute to our freedom, even within a determined universe.
8. Legacy:
o The Stoics laid the groundwork for ongoing debates about compatibilism.
Their discussions help frame modern considerations of freedom, causation,
and the nature of our actions within a determined world.

Key Takeaways:
 The Stoics reconcile freedom with determinism by emphasizing the role of rational
assent.
 They distinguish between determinism (every event has a cause) and fatalism
(events are fixed regardless of our actions).
  Chrysippus uses analogies like the cylinder to illustrate how our nature contributes to
our actions, even if they are determined.
 The discussion continues to influence contemporary debates on compatibilism,
freedom, and determinism.
1. Value Monism and the Stoic Sage
The Stoic sage, according to Stoic philosophy, is a model of rationality and virtue. The sage
lives in accordance with nature and reason, assenting only to true propositions. The Stoic
ideal is that true value resides solely in virtue. Everything else—wealth, health, pleasure, and
even relationships—are considered "preferred indifferents," meaning they are not inherently
valuable but can be preferred or chosen based on their alignment with virtuous living.
Key Points:
 Virtue as the Sole Value: For the Stoics, virtue alone has intrinsic value. Everything
else lacks value in itself, although it may be preferred or chosen if it supports virtuous
behavior.
 Emotions as False Judgments: Emotions are viewed as false judgments about
value. They arise from erroneous beliefs about the value of external circumstances.
For example, feeling anger or grief is seen as a result of mistakenly valuing
something outside of one’s control, like a delayed train or the death of a loved one.
2. Stoic Theory of Emotions
According to Stoic theory, emotions are not merely affective experiences but are
fundamentally judgments. Emotions are excessive impulses or movements in the soul that
deviate from rational decision-making. The Stoics categorize emotions like fear, desire,
pleasure, and pain as false beliefs:
 Fear: Belief that something future is evil and must be avoided.
 Desire: Belief that something future is good and must be pursued.
 Pleasure: Belief that something present is good and should be cherished.
 Pain: Belief that something present is bad and should be avoided.
Since emotions are based on false judgments about value, they are contrary to nature and
rationality.

3. Criticism and Response

Criticism: The Stoic view may seem inhumane or detached. Critics argue that it ignores the
nuanced, compassionate responses we expect from emotionally mature individuals. The
Stoic sage, with his apparent indifference to personal tragedies like the death of a child,
might seem morally questionable or emotionally sterile.
Stoic Response: Stoics argue that:
 Emotional Responses are Based on False Beliefs: Emotions mislocate value. The
sage does not mistake value where there is none. By adhering to true judgments, the
sage is not emotionally detached but rational and virtuous.
  Proper Locus of Value: If one accepts Stoic value monism, emotions lose their
power to disturb the sage, as they are based on the belief in false values.
4. Moderate Theories and Stoic Value Monism
One might adopt a moderate theory of emotions, acknowledging that they are value-
responsive without being purely judgments. However, to align fully with the Stoic ideal of the
sage, one must accept value monism:
Argument Summary:
1. The sage lives according to nature.
2. Living according to nature means assenting to true propositions.
3. Only virtue has value; all other propositions that ascribe value to non-virtuous things
are false.
4. Thus, the sage will not assent to propositions involving false value judgments, and
thus will be free of emotions.
Moderate Acceptance: Even if one doesn’t fully endorse the Stoic view of emotions as
solely false judgments, one can still align with Stoic practice by accepting that only virtue is
truly valuable and by adjusting one’s emotional responses accordingly.
Conclusion
The Stoic approach to emotions is deeply entwined with its broader philosophical system,
especially its value monism. While this view may seem extreme or counterintuitive, it offers a
cohesive framework where emotional disturbances are viewed as the result of false beliefs
about value. The Stoic sage, by contrast, lives a life of rational clarity, devoid of such
disturbances, by adhering strictly to the true value of virtue.
Skeptical Approach to Tranquility
The Hellenistic Skeptics critique the dogmatic assertions of other philosophical schools, such
as the Stoics, Epicureans, Platonists, and Aristotelians. They argue that these schools' rigid
claims impede the attainment of tranquility (ataraxia). Skeptics believe that the conflicting
answers provided by different schools regarding fundamental questions (e.g., the nature of
the good, pleasure, virtue) highlight our ignorance about these deep issues. The Skeptics
suggest that we are often persuaded by different, conflicting philosophical arguments and
that no single school can claim definitive knowledge.
Skepticism's View on Knowledge
Skeptics contend that our understanding of essential questions—such as what constitutes
the good or whether there is a true objective value—is fundamentally limited. They propose
that instead of striving for definitive answers, which may be beyond our grasp, we should
embrace the limitations of our knowledge. This acceptance can lead to a form of tranquility,
as it alleviates the stress associated with seeking absolute certainty.
Skeptical Method and Results
The Skeptics recommend suspending judgment (epoché) on matters of deep philosophical
concern. By relinquishing dogmatic beliefs, they argue, one can achieve tranquility more
effectively than through the dogmatic pursuit of answers. The Skeptics liken their approach to
the painter Apelles, who unintentionally achieved a desirable result by abandoning his efforts
and accepting a moment of apparent defeat.
Historical Development and Variations
Hellenistic Skepticism, originating with Pyrrho (c. 365–270 BCE), did not form a unified
school but had various branches. Pyrrho’s ideas were later developed by Aenesidemus and
the Academic Skeptics under Arcesilaus. Differences within Skepticism included the
distinction between "dogmatic Skeptics" who assert that knowledge is unattainable and "non-
dogmatic" or "Pyrrhonian" Skeptics who continue inquiry without committing to any particular
view.
Skeptical Philosophy as Presented by Sextus Empiricus
Sextus Empiricus, a prominent Pyrrhonian Skeptic, describes Skepticism as avoiding
absolute claims, even about Skepticism itself. He suggests that acknowledging our ignorance
and limitations can lead to a kind of freedom and tranquility, rather than striving for definitive
knowledge.

Important Points
 Critique of Dogmatism: Skeptics criticize the dogmatic positions of other
philosophical schools as hindrances to tranquility.
 Acceptance of Ignorance: Embracing our ignorance and suspending judgment on
profound questions can lead to tranquility.
 Method of Suspension: The Skeptical method involves suspending belief (epoché)
and accepting that certainty may be unattainable.
 Historical Variations: Hellenistic Skepticism includes different branches, with varying
methods and goals.
 Sextus Empiricus: Represents Pyrrhonian Skepticism, advocating for non-dogmatic
inquiry and acknowledging our limitations.
Nature and Goal of Pyrrhonian Skepticism
 Origins: Pyrrhonian Skepticism begins with the same philosophical aim as other
schools—achieving tranquility (ataraxia). The Skeptics are disturbed by philosophical
disagreements and seek peace of mind through a rigorous examination of truth and
falsity.
 Core Principle: The central tenet of Skepticism is that for every argument, an equally
compelling counter-argument exists. This principle leads to the suspension of
judgment (epoché).
Characteristics of Pyrrhonian Skepticism
 Equipollent Arguments: The Skeptics argue that for any given claim, there is an
equally strong argument against it. This balance of arguments necessitates the
suspension of judgment, as no argument is stronger or weaker than its opposite.
 Types of Doubt:
o Epistemic Doubt: Doubting whether we can truly know anything. This is more
akin to Cartesian skepticism, which questions the possibility of knowledge
itself.
o Doxastic Doubt: Doubting whether we have grounds to believe anything at
all. Pyrrhonian Skepticism emphasizes this form of doubt, leading to the
suspension of belief itself, not just knowledge.
Difference from Cartesian Skepticism
 Pyrrhonian vs. Cartesian Skepticism:
o Epistemic Skepticism: Descartes’ approach focuses on doubting our
knowledge claims due to possible deceptions or errors.
o Doxastic Skepticism: Pyrrhonists like Sextus Empiricus focus on suspending
all belief, including the belief in the truth of appearances or the nature of the
world, not merely the knowledge of it.

Phenomenal Propositions vs. Non-Phenomenal Propositions

 Phenomenal Propositions: Statements about appearances, such as “It appears to
me that p.” Pyrrhonists assent to these statements as they describe appearances but
do not commit to their truth.
 Non-Phenomenal Propositions: Statements about the nature of things beyond
appearances. Skeptics do not assent to these because they involve assertions about
reality that are beyond appearances.
Challenges and Responses
 Living Skepticism: Critics argue that Pyrrhonian Skepticism is impractical because it
seems impossible to function without making at least some non-phenomenal beliefs.
For instance, avoiding danger (like a truck) implies some belief about the truck’s
potential harm.
 Self-Refutation: Skeptics face the challenge of being accused of self-refutation or
pragmatic self-undermining if they can’t operate effectively or if their skeptical stance
appears inconsistent with everyday behavior.

Skeptical Method
 Doxastic Suspension: Pyrrhonists are committed to not forming beliefs about non-
phenomenal propositions, and their practice involves navigating life by acknowledging
and responding to appearances without asserting beliefs about them.
In summary, Pyrrhonian Skepticism involves a thoroughgoing suspension of judgment and
belief based on the principle that for every argument, an equally compelling counter-
argument exists. This approach leads to a form of philosophical tranquility that rejects
dogmatic claims to knowledge and even belief. The challenges faced by this form of
skepticism include accusations of impracticality and self-refutation, but Pyrrhonists respond
by emphasizing their commitment to live by appearances while avoiding definitive assertions
about the nature of reality.
The Equipollence Principle and Its Implications
1. Equipollence Principle: Sextus argues that for every non-phenomenal proposition (a
proposition not directly derived from sensory experience), there are equally strong
arguments for and against it. This suggests that no matter how compelling an
argument might seem, there is always a counter-argument of equal force.
2. Doxastic Skepticism: Given the Equipollence Principle, Sextus concludes that we
should suspend judgment on all non-phenomenal propositions. This radical stance is
based on the idea that since arguments are balanced on both sides, we lack sufficient
grounds to commit to any belief about these propositions.
3. Practical Example: Imagine deciding between two medical treatments where
evidence for and against each is equally persuasive. Sextus would suggest
suspending judgment because the arguments are balanced. This pragmatic approach
aligns with the idea that it is more rational to wait for clearer evidence or to remain
neutral.

Historical Context and Criticism

1. Democritus's Atomism: Democritus proposed that atoms and the void are real, even
if we can't directly perceive them. Sextus counters this by suggesting that arguments
for and against the existence of atoms are equipollent. If there is a counter-argument
suggesting atoms are incoherent, Sextus sees this as a reason to suspend belief.
2. Relativism and Objectivity: Sextus also argues against relativistic views that claim
phenomena are relative to different perceivers. For instance, if sea anemones
perceive colors in the ultraviolet spectrum that humans can't, should we say that
colors are relative or that the sea anemone’s perception is fundamentally correct?
Sextus argues that without an objective arbiter to resolve such differences, we must
suspend judgment.
3. Modes of Skepticism: Sextus details various modes (tropoi) for arguing that
equipollence exists in every non-phenomenal proposition. These modes involve
differences in perceptual faculties, varying contexts, and different cultural or scientific
views. They serve to illustrate that our perspectives are limited and subjective.
Why Take Skepticism Seriously?
1. Critical Self-Awareness: Skepticism forces us to critically examine our beliefs and
recognize the limits of our knowledge. It encourages intellectual humility by showing
that for many propositions, equally convincing arguments can be made on both sides.
2. Promoting Inquiry: By advocating for suspension of judgment, Sextus promotes
ongoing inquiry rather than premature conclusions. This aligns with a rational
approach that values continuous questioning and seeking of evidence.
 3. Practical Tranquility: As Sextus suggests, suspending judgment can lead to
tranquility (ataraxia), a state of mental calmness. By recognizing the limitations of our
knowledge and refraining from committing to uncertain beliefs, we might avoid the
anxiety associated with dogmatic assertions.
4. Philosophical Challenge: Even if one does not accept Skepticism as a doctrine,
engaging with its arguments can strengthen one’s own philosophical position. It
challenges us to refine our arguments and acknowledge the complexity of our beliefs
The critique against Skepticism, particularly the form advanced by Sextus Empiricus,
revolves around two main objections: the charge of dogmatism and the Apraxia Objection
(AO). Let's unpack these objections and Sextus' responses in more detail.

1. The Charge of Dogmatism

The first challenge accuses Skeptics, including Sextus, of being covert dogmatists. This
objection stems from the observation that Sextus, in promoting Skepticism, makes various
universal claims and recommendations about suspension of judgment and the nature of
belief. For instance:
 Universal Claims: Sextus states that "it is necessary to suspend judgment
concerning external objects," which sounds like a universal conclusion about how one
should respond to phenomena.
 Projections: He also anticipates the need to suspend judgment about the nature of
things, which implies a certain forward-looking stance.
The critic argues that by making such statements, Sextus is projecting a form of knowledge
or understanding about the nature of reality, thus exhibiting a form of dogmatism.
Sextus' Response: Sextus counters this by arguing that his pronouncements are self-
canceling. For example, when he asserts “No more so” (ouden mallon), he means that this
statement is as much subject to suspension as any other claim. The Skeptic's slogans, he
argues, are formulated in a way that negates themselves, thus avoiding any form of genuine
belief or dogmatism. Essentially, Sextus is saying that his statements do not imply any
commitment to non-phenomenal truths but are rather reports of how things appear to him.
2. The Apraxia Objection (AO)
The second challenge, known as the Apraxia Objection, questions whether Skepticism can
be lived out practically. The argument is as follows:
 1. Intentional Action Requires Assent: For an action to be intentional, an agent must
assent to certain non-phenomenal propositions (propositions not directly tied to
appearances).
2. Assent Implies Belief: If an agent assents to non-phenomenal propositions, they
hold non-phenomenal beliefs.
3. Non-Doxastic Skepticism Contradicted: Thus, if an agent holds non-phenomenal
beliefs, they are not a true doxastic Skeptic, who should refrain from all such beliefs.
4. Skeptics Act: Since Skeptics perform actions, it implies they must hold some beliefs,
contradicting their self-professed stance.

Sextus' Response: Sextus acknowledges that Skeptics do act according to appearances

but denies that this implies holding non-phenomenal beliefs. He argues that:
 Assent to Appearances: Skeptics might "assent" to appearances in the sense that
they respond to them without forming any commitment about the external nature of
things. They act based on what appears to them without committing to any belief
about the actual state of the world.
 Distinction Between Assent and Belief: Sextus might also imply that there is a
difference between acting upon an appearance and holding a non-phenomenal belief
about the nature of that appearance. Thus, a Skeptic can act in accordance with how
things appear without believing that these appearances reflect any non-phenomenal
truths.
Evaluating Sextus’ Responses
 Charge of Dogmatism: Sextus' response is aimed at showing that his Skeptical
formulas do not represent commitments to truths but rather self-canceling statements
that avoid dogmatism. This is a clever maneuver, but critics might argue that such
self-canceling formulas are a bit too convenient and may not fully address the
underlying concerns about dogmatic projection.
 Apraxia Objection: Sextus’ strategy to deny that intentional action requires non-
phenomenal assent, by distinguishing between following appearances and holding
beliefs, is more nuanced. The example of a soldier planning an escape might be seen
as a case where action does not necessarily imply belief, but there remains a debate
about whether such a strategy can be applied consistently across all forms of action
and belief.
Boethius and Historical Context:

• Background:

o Boethius (c. 475–7) was a Roman aristocrat and philosopher during the
Ostrogothic rule in Italy.

o He was educated in Greek and Latin literature and Neoplatonic philosophy.

o His political role as Theoderic’s Master of Offices led to his trial and
execution due to court intrigue and suspicion.

Boethius’s Contributions:

1. Transmission of Logic:

o Role: Main transmitter of ancient logic to the Latin West.

o Sources: Emphasized Porphyry’s commentaries over Neoplatonic

interpretations.

o Logical Curriculum:

▪ Included Porphyry’s Isagoge, Aristotle’s Categories, On

Interpretation, Prior and Posterior Analytics, and Sophistical
Refutations.

▪ Boethius wrote extensive commentaries on these works, preserving a

more Aristotelian tradition compared to his Greek contemporaries.

2. Universals:

o Debate: Engaged in the debate on the nature of universals (genera and

species).

o Argument: Boethius argued against the view that universals are merely
mental constructs, proposing that they can be understood through
abstraction.

3. Theory of Syllogistic Argument:

o Handbooks: Wrote two handbooks on syllogistic theory, providing clear

introductions to the theory before the availability of Aristotle's Prior
Analytics.

o Hypothetical Syllogisms:

▪ Boethius’s De syllogismis hypotheticis shows confusion between

propositional logic and term-logic, lacking a clear grasp of
propositional operations.

4. Topical Theory:

o Commentary: Wrote a commentary and a monograph on Aristotle’s Topics.

o Focus: Concerned with discovering persuasive arguments rather than

formally valid ones, using classifications of arguments (topical differentiae).
Theological Works (Opuscula sacra):

1. Treatise V:

o Context: Addresses doctrinal controversies like Monophysitism and

Nestorianism.

o Argument: Uses Aristotelian logic to critique the positions of Nestorius (two

distinct hypostases) and Eutyches (one divine nature).

2. Treatise I (De trinitate):

o Focus: Applies logic to the Trinity, building on Augustine’s work.

o Key Points: Addresses problems in predicating relations (paternity, filiation)

to God without compromising His immutability.

3. Treatise III (De hebdomadibus):

o Discussion: Philosophical discussion on metaphysical axioms, focusing on

the nature of goodness and existence.

o Key Idea: Distinguishes between substantial goodness (God) and goodness

by participation (other substances).

Summary of Boethius’s Impact:

• Logical Tradition: His commentaries and works influenced medieval Latin logic and
preserved Aristotelian thought.

• Theological Contributions: Integrated logic with theological issues, addressing

complex doctrinal controversies with philosophical rigor.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

summary of Boethius's De Consolatione Philosophiae (The Consolation of Philosophy):

Overview

• Context: Written by Boethius while imprisoned and awaiting execution, The Consolation
of Philosophy is framed as a dialogue between Boethius and a personified Philosophy.

• Purpose: Philosophy aims to comfort Boethius by demonstrating that true happiness is

unaffected by external misfortunes and that the apparent prosperity of the wicked is
illusory.

Content and Arguments

1. Book II and Early Book III:

o Complex View of the Highest Good: Philosophy argues that earthly goods like
wealth, power, and pleasure are of limited value. True happiness is found in
virtue and self-sufficiency.

o True Value of Goods: Though Boethius has lost material possessions, he still
retains what is truly valuable—virtue and love.
 2. Later Part of Book III:

o Simple View of the Highest Good: Based on Neoplatonic ideas, Philosophy

explains that the ultimate good and happiness are identical with God. Since God
is unchanging, perfect happiness remains unaffected by earthly events.

3. Book IV:

o Divine Providence and Justice: Philosophy addresses Boethius’s concerns

about the prosperity of the wicked and the suffering of the good. She argues that
happiness and goodness are synonymous, so wicked people cannot truly be
happy. Evil, being a lack of good, leads to self-punishment and degradation.

o Response to Boethius’s Doubts: When Boethius questions Philosophy's

assertions, she reconsiders her position and portrays God as an efficient cause,
providing a coherent plan for the universe.

4. Book V:

o Divine Providence and Human Freedom: Philosophy explores how divine

providence and foreknowledge interact with human free will. Despite God’s
comprehensive plan, human acts of volition are still free if they are rational and
not driven by worldly passions.

Form and Style

• Menippaean Satire: The work combines prose and verse, following the genre of
Menippaean satire, which often mixed serious philosophy with a satirical tone.

• Diverse Interpretations: The text’s layered arguments and its blending of prose with
verse allow for multiple interpretations, especially given Boethius’s background as a
Christian engaging with pagan philosophy.

Legacy

• Influence: The Consolation of Philosophy became one of the most widely read works in
medieval Europe and was influential in both Christian and secular contexts. Its unique
form and content contributed to its lasting impact across different cultures and periods.

Overall, Boethius's work addresses profound philosophical and theological issues regarding
happiness, providence, and the nature of good, using a dialogue format that engages with both
Stoic and Neoplatonic ideas.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquinas’s Intellectual Approach

1. Aquinas the Aristotelian

• Commentaries on Aristotle: Detailed interpretations of Aristotle’s texts.

• Comparison with Albert: Aquinas focused on direct text interpretation, unlike Albert’s
integration of Neoplatonic systems.

2. Negative Theology

• Influence of Maimonides: Aquinas rejects Maimonides’s view but incorporates aspects

of negative theology.

• Attributes of God: Aquinas discusses the limits of describing God using human
language.

3. Essence and Existence

• Essence vs. Existence:

o Created Beings: Essence and existence are distinct.

o God: Essence is to exist; God’s essence is existence itself.

• Criticisms:

o Misinterpretation of Avicenna.

o Modern objections regarding the coherence of existence as a predicate.

4. Soul and Body

• Dualism vs. Composite View:

o Traditional View: Soul and body as separate substances.

o Aquinas’s View: Humans are body-soul composites; the soul is the form of the
body and subsistent.

5. Intellectual Cognition

• Aristotelian Influence: Aquinas adopts and adapts Aristotle’s views on intellectual

thought.

• Active vs. Potential Intellect:

o Intelligible Species: Humans think through abstracted forms derived from

sensory images.

o Human vs. Angelic Cognition: Angels have immediate access to forms; humans
reason through abstractions and sensory input.

6. Realism and Representation

• Intelligible Species: Mental representations of universal forms.

• Link to External Reality: The role of sense images and mental words in cognition.
7. Brain Function and Cognition

• Aquinas’s Explanation: Brain damage affects the ability to access and use sense
images, impacting intellectual thought.

Peter Abelard:

• Ethics: Abelard’s moral philosophy is primarily deontological, focusing on duties and

obligations as outlined by natural law.

• Natural Law: Abelard believes that natural law helps everyone understand their moral
obligations.

Thomas Aquinas:

• Ethics: Aquinas embraces a virtue ethics, influenced by Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.

His moral theory incorporates both deontological elements and Christian doctrine.

• Summa Theologiae: Aquinas’ extensive moral theory is found in the two parts of Part II
of the Summa Theologiae:

o Prima Secundae: Discusses happiness, moral psychology, passions,

Aristotelian virtues, and law.

o Secunda Secundae: Examines theological virtues (faith, hope, charity),

individual virtues and vices, and different ways of life (active and contemplative).

Key Concepts:

• Happiness (Beatitudo):

o Aristotle: Happiness is an activity in accord with virtue. It involves intellectual

contemplation and moral virtues.

o Aquinas: Happiness is the beatific vision of God in the after-life. In this life,
happiness is achieved through virtuous activity.

• Virtue:

o Aristotle: Human virtues are based on rational thought and lead to happiness.

o Aquinas: Accepts Aristotelian virtues but adds theological virtues, which are
infused by God.

Aquinas on the Best Life:

• Contemplative Life: Aquinas values the contemplative life but emphasizes the
superiority of a life that involves teaching and sharing knowledge, as it illuminates
others, aligning with his own role as a Dominican teacher and preacher.
Historical Context:

• Aquinas’ Prominence: Aquinas is often seen as the medieval philosopher and the
quasi-official philosopher of the Catholic Church. This prominence and status reflect
post-medieval developments that can distort the history of medieval philosophy.