Stoic Radicalism

Stoicism made the transition from an intriguing foreign philosophy to a popular practice because it was taken up by several high profile figures. Scipio Africanus, the original esteemed Roman Stoic died in 129 BCE, but about 40 years later a new crop of celebrated Romans took up the Stoic practice. During the fall of the Roman Republic a group of famed orators, generals, and statesmen including Marcus Junius Brutus (85-42 BCE), Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BCE), Pompey the Great (106-48 BCE), and Cato the Younger (95-46 BCE) all professed themselves Stoics. This group of powerful statesmen and leaders practicing Stoicism disseminated it throughout Rome. Octavian (63 BC- 14 AD) who later became Caesar Augustus had a Stoic tutor and many

As a result of these contrasting opinions on the morality of slavery, Aristotle and Seneca also differ in their understanding of the amount of freedom possessed at birth. While Aristotle believes some are born as slaves and others as rulers, Seneca pronounces that we are all "fellow-slaves... Fortune has equal rights over slaves and free men alike." (p. 59). Seneca's account exhibits the perception that all people inherently possess the same freedoms and rights. It is unnatural to repress or deny a person of these ingrained liberties, labeling them as a slave and consequently stifling their deserved rights and opportunities to exercise and apply these rights in their future. Although Seneca does not renounce the system of slavery entirely, "On Master and Slave" provides a basis for the eventual abolition of slavery and unmerited usurpation of freedom.

The single most important philosophy in Rome was Stoicism, which originated in Hellenistic Greece. The contents of the philosophy were easily persuaded to the Roman worldview, especially to repeat what the Romans considered their crowning achievement. The centrepiece of Stoic philosophy was the concept of the logos. The universe is ordered by God and this order is the logos, which means ?meaning of the universe?. Rome at its beginning was basically agricultural and martial culture. As a result, the earliest Romans stressed effortlessness, strength, and toughness, which are all requirements of both the agricultural and martial lifestyles.

Born of different backgrounds, upbringings, and experiences, Epictetus and Seneca are Roman philosophers who outwardly appear very different. Epictetus spent most of his youth as a slave while Seneca was born into money and became a tutor of Nero. Although these two men seem to be very dissimilar, they each shared a common purpose in studying philosophy and teaching people on how to live well. Each suggested different paths for how to do so. Epictetus suggests in his book, The Discourses and The Enchiridion, that living a life in accordance with nature could be achieved by living moderately. Seneca suggests in his work, Letters from a Stoic, that a happy man is self-sufficient and realizes that happiness depends only on interior perfection. Despite the differences, both Epictetus and Seneca are considered Stoics because of their shared belief in the idea that character is the only guarantee of everlasting, carefree happiness. The world outside ourselves will never give us happiness, nor will it be responsible for our unhappiness. It doesn’t matter what’s happening outside ourselves, Epictetus and Seneca claim that the only thing that matters is how we interpret those events. Further evaluating Seneca’s, Letters from a Stoic and Epictetus’s, The Discourses and The Enchiridion, we will clearly be able to differentiate the two in their ideas and opinions regarding stoicism and the keys to living a well, happy life.

In The Assassination of Julius Caesar, Michael Parenti highlights the many significant people and events that characterized the late Roman Republic. Specifically, he focuses on the time period between the election of Tiberius Grachus, to the rise of Augustus, the first emperor of Rome. In this account of history, Parenti presents the social, political, and economic aspects of the Roman culture from the perspective of the Roman commoner, or plebeian. Using this perspective, he also spends a great amount of time examining the causes and effects of the assassination of Julius Caesar. The views that Parenti presents in this book stand in sharp contrast with the views of many ancient and modern historians, and offer an interesting and enlightening perspective into class struggle in the society of the Roman republic.

In the Tusculan Disputation, Cicero conveys a powerful view on the importance of eliminating emotions through Stoic philosophy. The essence of Stoic philosophy believes the one must strive to reach the state of apatheia, which is a tranquil state of mind that is free from obstructive passions. In order to attain apatheia, one must free their mind from anything that infiltrates it, for “emotions are wrong in and of themselves and have nothing either natural or necessary about them” (Cicero 61). Cicero asserts that the natural state of the human mind is one that is filled with peace, but the passions we gain from the circumstances around us warp and shape the stasis of our mind. Because of this notion, women have been discouraged to take part in politics because of their supposedly passionate nature. If a woman were to show too much emotion, she would be perceived as either fragile or insane. Stoic philosophy believes that anger is in accordance with insanity, for “there can be no doubt that it is insane” (Cicero 67). To be consumed by anger is to be outside of your right mind, because “anger will go to any length, just as madness will” (Cicero 68). The idea that women are unstable because of their loss of emotions, such as anger, corresponds with the belief they are unfit for

Two of the more memorable emperors to the Romans were Augustus Caesar (27 BC to 14 AD), and Caligula (37 AD to 41 AD). Although only having ruled the empire by a separation of 23 years and belonging to the same family (through marriage and adoption), their empires couldn’t have been more different. It is possible to determine the impact of an emperor’s rule based on their many vices and virtues, as well as the choices that they make in relation to them. The author Suetonius expressed in his writings the many vices and virtues that put into perspective the kind of leaders that these emperors appeared as to their polis. As we explore the concept of vices and virtues, as well as what kind of ideals these two rulers represented, we will begin to be presented with a clearer picture of what an ideal emperor would have looked like. A vice can be described as an immoral or wicked behavior; while a virtue can be described as a behavior showing high moral standards. Suetonius and the Roman people had a high interpretation of the concept of virtue and vice, as well as their role in the ruler’s life.

Virgil’s The Aeneid is a representation of the morality and ideology of ancient Roman society. Although Virgil is biased in presenting his culture to look more progressive, he does critique and disagree with some aspects of modern Roman thought of the time. However, through the use of character motivations, beliefs, and actions, Virgil preserves Roman culture as a heroic legacy. The sense of duty, willpower, and family that the hero Aeneas possesses as he follows destiny are used to elucidate the complexity of the Roman view of free will – that free will only exists to encourage and describe the method behind a predetermined fate.

After the death of Aristotle, philosophy that targeted greater complex depths was outrun by philosophy that focused on mere everyday lives. With the rise and fall of Skepticism, Cynicism, and Epicureanism there was an influence that survived years impacting life and that was Stoicism. Zeno of Citium who believed that the world had an ultimate plan and everything--including nature, animals, and humans, were there for a reason (Hergenhahn & Henley, 2014, p. 66). The reason Stoicism was easily used is because it was well-suited with the way Romans highlighted their law and order giving the extensive coverage displayed by many philosophers, including Marcus Aurelius.

The Transcendentalist notion of questioning the bible as a legitimate authority must have shaken the foundation

Roman values and their importance to the state play a central role in Julius Caesar. These values are portrayed as integral to the success of Rome, because the majority of these virtues act in favour of the state. Each person in Roman society has their own role which is part of a more important collective whole. Characters in the play seem to identify more with being a citizen or “soul of Rome” rather than a unique individual (Shakespeare, 2.1.323). The play emphasizes Rome as “an alien society” and analyses the relationship “between Rome and the Romans, who see themselves as ‘citizens,’ rather than ‘men’” (Miles, 2). Shakespeare emphasizes the importance of the state over personal thoughts or feelings: “not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more” (Shakespeare, 3.2.21-22). Each of the Roman virtues arises out of a sense of duty to put the state over the self. Following this duty evokes a necessary recognition of

Power is a natural desire for humans. It is what structures society, makes the world turn, and to get more of it, people will do almost anything. Yet society often follows whoever is in power without a second thought. Because the Romans follow whoever is in power without considering that person’s morals and ideals, they are responsible for the anarchy that ensues after Caesar’s death.

This is because Stoicism teaches us that, before we try to control events, we must control ourselves first. Our attempts to exert influence on the world are subject to chance, disappointment, and failure—but control of the self is the only kind that can succeed 100% of the time. Leaders have found that a Stoic attitude earns them respect in the face of failure, and guards against arrogance in the face of success. In the movie Gladiator we see this tactic from Maximus Decimus Meridius who shows stoic qualities demonstrated by prominent followers of the Ancient Greek principle. Although he is a Roman citizen and should not, under the Roman laws, be a slave, Maximus does not complain, and quietly does as he is ordered. Maximus is strong enough

In 323 B.C., the Hellenic Humanistic civilization came to an end, and Hellenistic individualism was born. Hellenistic individualism was everything that Hellenic Greece was not. This new time period would be described as “Greekish” because it was not purely Greek in culture (Humanities, 83). Before the Individualistic era began, the civilization was united in language, philosophy and religion, having a strong historical impact that connected them. Hellenistic individualism was created in a time of loneliness and isolation. When the polis were replaced, individualism emerged, because people were searching for continuity, they were searching for identity through the individual (Humanities, 91). I will be contrasting the different viewpoints from Hellenic Age and the Hellenistic Age; focusing on the philosophy of Aristotle, the philosophy of Epicurus and the new art form.

As theory cannot escape the social, economic and political of the time in which it was developed, one cannot truly consider critiquing Aristotle’s natural theory of slavery without some knowledge of slavery in Aristotle’s world. First and foremost, slavery was ubiquitous. Furthermore, they were employed not only as household servants and stewards, but in Aristotle’s Athens, they are worked in the fields, the mines, as craftsman, traders, secretaries, accountants, teachers, doctors, public servants, and participated in the arts. Hence they were indispensable for satisfying the needs of Athenians of even modest affluence. The perfect household was one that had slaves (Politics 1253b 4). Without their exploitation, the middle and upper classes’ good life would cease to exist. Moreover, the Aristotelian, ideal citizen would not be free to engage in the rational activities prescribed. While Aristotle’s defense of slavery can be considered morally repugnant to