Thesis--Leipzig. / On reel 83 beginning frame no. 1074.

Thèse - Faculté de Paris.

Thèse - Faculté de Paris.

Chapter 1, 2 of the Noctes Atticae reports how the orator and politician Herodes Atticus silences a boastful young Stoic by citing a diatribe of Epictetus. The article shows that Gellius – unlike his own assertion – does not describe a real experience. Instead he dramatizes the text (Epict. diss. 2, 19), which is the origin of the citation. Comparing both texts one finds details of the scenery described, the characterizations of the protagonists as well as the themes discussed quite similar in both the non-cited parts of Epictetus and the text of Gellius. Particularly interesting in that respect is how Gellius takes up citing and its various aspects as it can be found in his model. Epictetus deals with this theme in a critical way, because in his opinion citations of authorities say nothing about the philosophical qualities of the person who uses them. While Gellius’ praxis of citation is formally modelled very closely on Epictetus’ speech, regarding the content he by no means rejects the use of philosophical citations as weapon to beat an opponent in discussion.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-27T17:27:12Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Rodrigues.pdf: 962222 bytes, checksum: 514266debaa8d3210fd6a22ae45eaed0 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-11-03 / The katharsis concept exposed in Plato s Fédon was absorbed and incorporated to Epictetus desire exercise. As katharsis was moved from its place of origin to Epictetus s spiritual exercise, it suffered transformations to adapt to the zenonian rule of life conduct. Epictetus strongly believes that to live in conformity with nature one needs to put a lot of effort towards the separation of body and soul. So that, to him, only the men who possesses freedom acquires, at the same time, the ability to accept life as it is, becoming capacitated to receive with complete indifference whatever may destiny bring. To Epictetus the abolition of all soul s enslavement starts with the separation of ours and someone else s and completes itself with the comprehension that someone else s is nothing to us / A noção de katharsis exposta no Fédon de Platão foi absorvida e incorporada à ascese do desejo epictetiana. A katharsis ao ser deslocada de seu lugar de origem para o exercício espiritual epictetiano sofreu transformações para adaptar-se à regra de conduta zenoniana de viver. Epicteto acredita piamente que para se viver em conformidade com a natureza não há como prescindir do esforço de separação da alma do corpo. De modo que, para ele, somente o homem que se apodera da liberdade adquire concomitantemente a habilidade de aceitar a vida como é, capacitando-se a receber com total indiferença seja o que for que o destino traga. Para Epicteto a abolição de todas as escravaturas da alma começa na separação do nosso do alheio e se completa com a compreensão de que o alheio não é nada para nós

Contemporary debates in ethics are characterised by opposing views that appear to be irreconcilable. Rational debates seem to be making no headway due to the fact that the incompatibilities of the different views seem to lie within the very premises of the different arguments. These debates acquire an interminable character, because representatives of the different standpoints refuse to accept each others’ premises. MacIntyre attributes this state of affairs to the failure of the Enlightenment project. In their attempt to create a universally valid moral system the Enlightenment philosophers discredited the ethical traditions and emphasized reason as the only authority on these matters. The supposedly “universal” rational arguments are built on premises the Enlightenment thinkers inherited from the exact same ethical traditions whose authority they consciously undermined. The irony of the Enlightenment project is therefore that it caused its own failure. MacIntyre believes that the Enlightenment thinkers were mistaken in undermining the authority of all the ethical traditions. He argues that the authority of the critical traditions is legitimate. A critical tradition is a moral tradition where some form of rational enquiry is embodied in the tradition itself. MacIntyre defends the authority of the Aristotelian tradition as the critical tradition per se. In my own enquiry I defend the authority of the Stoic tradition. I attempt to point out the flaws in MacIntyre’s understanding of the Stoics and argue that in some respects the Stoic tradition is a better alternative to the Aristotelian one. After having justified the authority of the Stoic tradition I take a closer look at what their ethics entail. The Stoics have what Cottingham refers to as a “synoptic” conception of philosophy. This means that they tried to integrate all the aspects of human understanding into a single system. Therefore, if one wishes to give a comprehensive picture of their ethics it is necessary to explain their philosophical work on physics and logic as well. I do so by comparing their understanding of physics to the contemporary understanding thereof. The Stoics believed that philosophy is not an abstract theoretical discipline, but rather a way of life. Theoretical arguments play an important role in so far as it helps us to comprehend the nature of the good, but ultimately philosophy is about helping us to live a good life. In light of this understanding I argue that they conceived of ethics as the art of living. The Stoics also believed that one could practice ethics as a form of therapy for our emotions. They believed that emotions such as anger and depression are caused by misguided ways of thinking and that ultimately the good life would cultivate our spirit and enable us to become more resistant to these types of emotions. Simultaneously it will enable us to experience more rational emotions such as joy. The ultimate aim of my research project is to highlight the important contributions the Stoics can make to the crisis we are currently experiencing in ethical discourse. / Dissertation (MA (Philosophy))--University of Pretoria, 2007. / Philosophy / unrestricted

Zugl.: Aberdeen, University, Diss., 2007.

Cette recherche prend pour objet d’étude la conception stoïcienne de la responsabilité, éclairée par la thématique contemporaine de l’engagement. Les différents niveaux du discours – ontologique, physique, psychologique, moral et politique – réinterrogent également, par leur articulation problématique, l’unité des stoïciens. On résume traditionnellement leur fatalisme à un «compatibilisme», dans la mesure où ils conjuguaient liberté et déterminisme. Cette compatibilité est au principe même de la notion de responsabilité, dont il s’agit de comprendre comment, de la physique à la morale, mais aussi, du stoïcisme hellénistique au stoïcien impérial, elle reçoit un traitement autant inédit qu’équivoque. On s’interrogera ainsi sur l’articulation du concept de «cause» (αἴτιον) avec celui de «ἐφ' ἡμῖν» (ce qui dépend de nous), concepts qui mettent en jeu la problématique de l’imputation – où il s’agit de fonder la responsabilité humaine – dans son lien avec celle de l’assomption, où il s’agit de la reprendre à son propre compte en accomplissant son rôle et ses devoirs. Ces deux versants de la responsabilité mobilisent toutes les branches du système stoïcien, et leur caractère organique. On montre que la responsabilité reçoit une extension maximale, parce que son analyse est synthétique. Le passage de la responsivité ontologique à l’assomption morale, qui ouvre, de Chrysippe à Épictète et Marc Aurèle, à une éthique de la responsabilité et à un engagement philosophique, qui fait fond sur l’idée d’acceptation et de renversement, constituera le point de mire de notre questionnement. / This research studies the Stoic conception of responsibility, informed by the contemporary theme of commitment. Different levels of the discourse - ontological, physical, psychological, moral and political - will also question anew, by their problematic articulation, the unity of the Stoics. Traditionally, their fatalism is summarized by a "compatibilism", insofar as they associate freedom and determinism. This compatibility is at the very principle of the concept of responsibility, which we should understand by how it receives a treatment as unique as equivocal, from its physics to its morals, but also from the Hellenistic to the Imperial stoicism. We will thus wonder about the articulation of the concept of "cause" (αἴτιον) with that of "ἐφ' ἡμῖν" (that which is up to us), concepts that involve the issues of attribution - where it comes to build up human responsibility - and assumption, where it comes to seize it again by performing one's role and duties. Those both sides of responsibility mobilize all the branches of the Stoic system and their organic character. We show that responsibility receives a maximal extension, because its analysis is synthetic. The shift from ontological responsiveness to moral assumption that leads, from Chrysippus to Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, towards an ethics of the responsibility and a philosophical commitment, which builds on the idea of acceptance and overthrow, will be the focus of our inquiry.

This thesis examines Epictetus' view on Cynic philosophy, as it is being expressed in chapter 22 of the third book of Diatribai ("The Discourses"). The chapter has traditionally been seen as an idealized and deceitful portrait of the Cynic, and has been questioned as an intended justification of stoics and Cynics in the overall view on the history of philosophy. This thesis, however, attempts a different approach on the matter, based upon a thorough discussion regarding the field of research, as well as on different ways to read and understand the text at hand, in order to seek out a view that goes beyond the traditional distinction between practice and theory. The thesis thus challenges the view where the philosophy of Epictetus is seen as an instrumental practice of stoic theory, isolated to the field of ethics.   The reading of the chapter focuses mainly on the philosophical purpose of the text and its intended practice, and finds that much of the stoic ascetic practice is not only taught through instructions, but also performed in the lecture and Epictetus' way of speaking. Epictetus' portrait of the philosophical Cynic is thus understood, not only as an extreme end that serves as an ascetic role-model, but also as a basic archetype of what it actually means to practice a philosophical way of thinking, that is of central importance to Epictetus philosophy. This sheds a new light on both the traditional distinction between stoic theory and practice, and on much of the research performed on the field of stoicism this far, as well as on that of Cynicism.

Cotutelle entre l'Université de Montréal et Sorbonne Université / Zénon de Kition, le fondateur du stoïcisme, a reçu une partie de sa formation philosophique chez le cynique Cratès de Thèbes. Ce contact a laissé une empreinte durable sur l’école stoïcienne, qui a continué d’entretenir des liens étroits avec le cynisme. Ma thèse propose une contribution à notre connaissance de ce rapport entre les deux courants philosophiques en analysant toutes les références au cynisme dans les écrits stoïciens, de Zénon à Marc Aurèle. La première partie de ma thèse recense tous les textes du corpus, cités en grec ou en latin, avec une traduction française. Chaque texte est accompagné d’un commentaire philologique et philosophique. La complexité du rapport que les stoïciens entretiennent avec le cynisme se manifeste particulièrement chez ceux dont les écrits sont bien conservés. C’est le cas de Sénèque, qui offre dans son œuvre philosophique des portraits élaborés de deux cyniques, Diogène et Démétrius, tout en critiquant certains aspects du cynisme. La contribution d’Épictète est encore plus importante, puisqu’il consacre un entretien complet à la vie et au rôle du cynique, et réserve à Diogène une place de premier choix dans son enseignement. Son admiration pour les véritables cyniques contraste avec le jugement sévère qu’il porte sur les faux cyniques de son temps. La deuxième partie de ma thèse analyse en détail trois textes qui font état d’un débat stoïcien sur la possibilité que le sage « cynicise » (D.L., VII 121 ; Cic., Fin. III 68 ; Arius Didyme apud Stob., II 7, 11s). Certains stoïciens refusent que le sage cynicise, d’autres l’acceptent dans certaines circonstances, et d’autres encore, comme Apollodore de Séleucie, considèrent que le cynisme est une voie d’accès à la vertu rapide mais difficile. En établissant un lien entre les portraits du sage et la doctrine des actions convenables, j’analyse le débat à travers la classification morale des actions dans l’éthique stoïcienne. Pour éclairer davantage la position d’Apollodore, je m’intéresse au lien qui l’unit à la doxographie cynique générale (D.L., VI 103-105) et j’examine la signification de l’image de la voie vers la vertu à travers sa genèse et sa postérité. Il en ressort trois caractéristiques fondamentales du cynisme : le rejet des devoirs sociaux, le choix de la pauvreté et le refus des longues études. Pour approuver ce mode de vie, dont les traits sont contraires aux recommandations stoïciennes habituelles, les stoïciens pro-cyniques adoptent une posture de compromis et fixent des limites étroites à l’intérieur desquelles la pratique du cynisme devient légitime. / Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, received part of his philosophical instruction from the Cynic Crates of Thebes. This connection left a lasting imprint on the Stoic school, which continued to maintain strong ties with Cynicism. My dissertation proposes a contribution to our knowledge of the relationship between the two philosophical movements by analyzing all the references to Cynicism in Stoic writings, from Zeno to Marcus Aurelius. The first part of my dissertation lists all the texts composing the corpus, cited in Greek or Latin, with a French translation. Each text is accompanied by a philological and philosophical commentary. The complexity of the Stoics’ perspective on Cynicism is made evident in those whose writings are well preserved. This is the case of Seneca, who offers in his philosophical works elaborate portraits of two Cynics, Diogenes and Demetrius, while criticizing some aspects of Cynicism. The contribution of Epictetus is even more important, since he devotes an entire discourse to the life and role of the Cynic, and gives Diogenes a prominent place in his teaching. His admiration for true Cynics contrasts with his harsh judgment on the fake Cynics of his time. The second part of my dissertation analyzes at length three texts that report a Stoic debate on the possibility for the sage to “cynicize” (D.L., VII 121; Cic., Fin. III 68; Arius Didymus apud Stob., II 7, 11s). Some Stoics refuse to allow the sage to cynicize, while some accept it under certain circumstances and others, such as Apollodorus of Seleucia, consider Cynicism to be a quick but difficult path to virtue. By establishing a link between the portraits of the sage and the doctrine of proper actions, I analyze the debate through the moral classification of actions in Stoic ethics. To shed further light on Apollodorus’ position, I explore his connection to the Cynic doxography (D.L., VI 103-105) and examine the meaning of the image of the path to virtue through its genesis and posterity. Three fundamental characteristics of Cynicism emerge: the rejection of social duties, the choice of poverty, and the refusal of extended studies. To endorse this lifestyle, whose features are contrary to customary Stoic advice, pro-Cynic Stoics adopt a posture of compromise and set narrow limits within which the practice of Cynicism becomes legitimate.