Roman Philosophy

[M. Porcius Cato]

As thinking people, we have beliefs about knowledge, about what is right and wrong, and about the nature of the world. Which Roman philosopher's views do you find to be most compatible with your own?

[M. Porcius Cato]

On Stoicism, I disagree with my namesake. Lucretius' philosophy seems much more on track to me.

[Favonius Cornelius]

In both personal and political, I have to admit Marcus Aurelius' meditations have offered me another look on life when it seems against you. His stoic, perhaps pessimistic outlook gives one strength to look forward still rather than back.

[Ursus]

To be honest, I'm not much for philosophy.

 

There are aspects of the Peripatetics and the Stoa that I can enjoy. But at the end of the day I find philosophy a rather lifeless and overly complicated venture.

 

I'd rather go for the traditional values of the Roman aristocracy - dignitas, virtu, auctoritas, gravitas, pietas, etc. Building a good name by one's devotion and service to the community. Commanding respect (and perhaps power) through reputation and honor. Glory and praise for deeds well accomplished. Being a loyal member of a community that actually deserves respect and service. That's what I get out of Romanatis.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'd rather go for the traditional values of the Roman aristocracy - dignitas, virtu, auctoritas, gravitas, pietas, etc. Building a good name by one's devotion and service to the community. Commanding respect (and perhaps power) through reputation and honor. Glory and praise for deeds well accomplished. Being a loyal member of a community that actually deserves respect and service. That's what I get out of Romanatis.

 

Then you'd probably like Cicero's De Officiis. I'd also point out that each of these traditional values are questionable--they might be right, they might be wrong. One purpose of philosophy is to sort out these kind of issues. For example, pietas to what? To one's family? To one's freedom? To the freedom of one's neighbor? What if these pieties conflict? The traditional code offers no guidance at all.

 

I think the only way to make a virtue-ethics work is by providing some sort of hierarchical structure to the virtues by reference to an overarching standard and purpose. Without this, any list of candidate virtues is bound to face the problem of conflicting goals. If our goals are in conflict, we dont' know what to do, and if we don't know what to do, we're just playing by the seat of our pants, and avoiding this is the whole point of having virtues in the first place.

[Sextus Roscius]

Ciceronian philosphy is definatly on track, but not quite exactly, with what I'm like. Strict Republican values.

 

Also, to Cato, the Traditional Republican Values allow you to make your own decisions in a sense, and you at some point need to decide for yourself which is right, which is wrong, and what is more important. The goal of philosophy is give people a guide to life on what they need to do in every situation, but to give a general idea of things that are important and one decides.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I really don't have any, but Augustine because I can identify with a few of his ideas even if his ideals are too stict.

Edited January 9, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Pantagathus]

Though I highly respect most elements from all the named men on the poll, I had to vote 'OMIGOD' because of the omission of Epictetus

 

His version of stoicism is quite empowering.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I almost included Epictetus. Tell us, why do you prefer the Stoicism of the slave to the Stoicism of the emperor? And why do you think this same philosophy could appeal to both a slave and an emperor?

[Favonius Cornelius]

I almost included Epictetus. Tell us, why do you prefer the Stoicism of the slave to the Stoicism of the emperor? And why do you think this same philosophy could appeal to both a slave and an emperor?

 

Both are trapped. In a way, a common man has more freedom than both.

[Pertinax]

to quote Orwell-"freedom (meaning absolute freewill) is slavery , slavery ( meaning no decision making at all) is freedom" . A totally free man in a position of responsiblity carries a burden of responsiblity for the many, the unfree have no choices save to stay alive.Which , I believe, is Favonius Cornelius's point.

Edited January 9, 2006 by Pertinax

[M. Porcius Cato]

to quote Orwell-"freedom (meaning absolute freewill) is slavery , slavery ( meaning no decision making at all) is freedom" . A totally free man in a position of responsiblity carries a burden of responsiblity for the many, the unfree have no choices save to stay alive.Which , I believe, is Favonius Cornelius's point.

 

I didn't take Newspeak as a serious philosophical contribution so much as the propaganda of Big Brother, and I didn't quite understand your gloss of it either. If you mean that emperors are virtually slaves to the many and thus share with actual slaves an understanding of duty and self-denial, OK.

[Pertinax]

to quote Orwell-"freedom (meaning absolute freewill) is slavery , slavery ( meaning no decision making at all) is freedom" . A totally free man in a position of responsiblity carries a burden of responsiblity for the many, the unfree have no choices save to stay alive.Which , I believe, is Favonius Cornelius's point.

 

I didn't take Newspeak as a serious philosophical contribution so much as the propaganda of Big Brother, and I didn't quite understand your gloss of it either. If you mean that emperors are virtually slaves to the many and thus share with actual slaves an understanding of duty and self-denial, OK.

 

That was exactly my suggestion, an Emperor possessed of a strict moral conscience is totally unfree, he is morally obliged to take care of the peoples of the Empire, Marcus Aurelius's charachter particularly fitted him for this burden. I was also thinking of those people in modern society who prefer "institutionalised" or ritualised living in preference to active citizenship as an example of "willing" slavery. I dont suggest Orwell as a philosopher , but his work resonates profoundly to British Libertines.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Pertinax

[M. Porcius Cato]

That was exactly my suggestion, an Emperor possessed of a strict moral conscience is totally unfree, he is morally obliged to take care of the peoples of the Empire, Marcus Aurelius's charachter particularly fitted him for this burden. I was also thinking of those people in modern society who prefer "institutionalised" or ritualised living in preference to active citizenship as an example of "willing" slavery. I dont suggest Orwell as a philosopher , but his work resonates profoundly to British Libertines.

 

I'm a fan of Orwell too! BTW, I love your contrast between "ritualised living" and "active citizenship". The former certainly has the form of slavery (albeit with an alternative the slave never had)--and that servile form of living was embraced by stoicism and is the perfect description for the life of the slave and emperor.

 

Off-Rome but on-topic, didn't Louis XIV develop and enforce a schedule for the "perfect day" at Versailles? As I recall, the effect of this inflexible and non-adpative schedule helped to keep French monarchs utterly disconnected from reality.

[Pertinax]

The Sun King did indeed seek to do such a thing, and in his lifetime Britain rose from a dim protestant cul de sac to a centralplayer in European politics -and laid tactical foundations for its huge Empire-whilst France stuttered from superpower to nation state. So outward appearences suggest that the Great King was severly disconnected! His bureaucracy was fearsomely effective but its rigid formality lead to some serious head lopping later.Ob-com behaviour on a "majestic" scale.

 

I would like to mention the Japanese ethic of "The Floating World" , where the sensual experiences ( and enjoyments) of the flesh and mind are seen as quite distinct from the hard reality of devotion to one's Lord. I suggest also that the Japanese were far more "morally flexible" Being able to move from Ikebana or poetry or "fleshly " pleasure and formal courtly behaviour, to directly strapping on a sword and hacking a limb off an opponent ( or accepting death oneself) without stepping outside of a particular moral code .That might of course make them "slaves" in the same manner as Marcus Aurelius.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Pertinax