Ancient Philosophy

Philosophy of the Hellenistic Era

In the history of antiquity, the period commencing with Alexander the Great's Asian conquests (334 BCE) is commonly referred to as the beginning of the Hellenistic era. The term "Hellenism" was introduced in the 19th century by the German historian Heinrich Droysen (1808-1884) in his work “History of Hellenism.” It denotes the span of time marked by the emergence of individual states following the disintegration of Alexander's empire until their subsequent subjugation by Rome. The history of Hellenism is divided into three periods:

• The emergence of Hellenistic states (late 4th to early 3rd century BCE);
• The flourishing of Hellenistic states (3rd to early 2nd century BCE);
• The decline and conquest by Rome (mid-2nd to late 1st century BCE).

Following the reign of Alexander, various states arose: the Ptolemaic Kingdom in Egypt, the Seleucid Empire in Syria and Mesopotamia, and the Antigonid Kingdom in Macedonia and Greece. A fourth kingdom, established by Lysimachus in Thrace and northern Asia Minor, was short-lived, fragmenting into the Pergamene, Bithynian, Galatian, and Pontic realms.

While historians often confine Hellenism to the interval of "late 4th to late 1st century BCE," culturally, this period could arguably extend for another century or two. The Greeks previously distinguished between the Hellenic world and the barbarian, identifying themselves with the former. However, following Alexander’s conquests, this distinction blurred; Eastern cultural elements flowed into Greece while the traditions of ancient Greek culture took root in the East, thereby expanding the Hellenistic world considerably. Mysticism, symbolism, magic, new religions, and different forms of art and architecture permeated Greece from the East, while rationalism and scientific and political advancements spread from Greece to the East.

Philosophically, significant changes occurred. The loss of political independence and, along with it, the sense of personal freedom and dignity had a profound impact on philosophical teachings. New schools of thought emerged, primarily addressing social, political, and ethical issues, particularly the pressing question of how to live and attain happiness in the context of political unfreedom. The focus shifted toward determining a proper mode of existence in a social world that had largely become alien to individuals accustomed to the traditional city-state. During the Hellenistic era, three new philosophical movements gained prominence, each primarily concerned with these issues: Epicureanism, Skepticism, and Stoicism. Let us examine the fundamental tenets of each.

Epicureanism

This school, named after its founder Epicurus (342-271 BCE), first appeared in Athens when he arrived at the age of eighteen to affirm his citizenship. He established a community known as the "Garden" in 306 BCE, a somewhat insular, quasi-sectarian group seeking to embody the principles of his teachings in their personal lives. Epicurus authored around 300 works (each a papyrus scroll), presenting himself as an adherent of atomic theory, a sensualist, and primarily a moral philosopher. His main concern revolved around the questions of what constitutes the good and how one attains happiness. He regarded pleasure, specifically the tranquility of the mind, as the highest good, achieved through the fulfillment of natural needs and the attainment of inner peace.

Epicurus identified three groups of fears that particularly obstruct the path to happiness: fears of natural phenomena, gods, and death. He employed various means (including physics and logical arguments) to dispel these fears. First, the fear of natural phenomena stems from ignorance of their causes. Utilizing the atomic theory of Leucippus and Democritus, Epicurus sought to explain all natural occurrences that might inspire fear. Second, one need not fear the gods, for they are preoccupied with their own affairs and conflicts, indifferent to human concerns. Finally, he advised that the most burdensome fears related to mortality can be overcome through simple reasoning: our lives and the moments of death never intersect, for when we exist, death is not present, and when it arrives, we are no longer there.

Epicurus maintained that engagement in political life is entirely undesirable and superfluous, as it yields no happiness. He counseled against political activity, famously stating, "Live discreetly!"

Skepticism

The founder of skepticism is considered to be Pyrrho (c. 360-275 BCE), a student of Anaxarchus. Alongside his teacher, he participated in Alexander’s Indian campaign, where he began to practice behaviors stemming from the principles of his teachings. He did not write any works but communicated his thoughts orally.

The term "skepticism" derives from the Greek word meaning "to look around," which conveys a state of indecision. This reflects the essence of the doctrine, characterized by a principled refusal to make definitive, convincing judgments regarding anything. The central question raised by skepticism resonates with the overarching spirit of Hellenism: How should one live? How does one achieve happiness? Pyrrho articulated that "a philosopher is one who seeks happiness," adding that "happiness lies in tranquility and the absence of suffering." To attain such a state, one should first pose three questions and provide clear answers, as suggested by Pyrrho's student, Timon of Phlius (320-230 BCE):

• In what form do things exist, i.e., what are they?
• How should we relate to them?
• How ought we to behave based on our relation to things?

The proposed answers were as follows: We do not know what things are in reality; they are indistinguishable from one another and ephemeral. We remain ignorant of their composition, and the numerous schools with their contradictory assertions regarding the nature of things only illustrate human helplessness on this matter. For the second question, it is proposed that we cannot trust either our perceptions of things or our representations of them, as both are neither true nor false due to the transitory nature of things. Thus, we should refrain from judgment regarding the nature of things (with "things" encompassing anything from natural objects to moral qualities). Here, the skeptics employ the term epoché (suspension of judgment). The response to the third question encapsulates the essence of Pyrrhonism: from this attitude toward things arises a total freedom of judgment, leading to tranquility (ataraxia) and indifference (apathia). In this lies happiness.

Unlike Pyrrho, Timon of Phlius composed his works, becoming the first logician of Pyrrhonism. A prime example of a typical judgment reflecting complete uncertainty in characterizing a subject can be found in Timon’s remark: “I refuse to assert that this honey is sweet; I fully suppose that it appears sweet.” This expression reveals an adeptness in cautiously handling evaluations to maintain utmost impartiality; it is best to navigate within the contours of the skeptics’ cherished refrain: “For every statement, there is also a counter-statement.”

The ideas of skepticism were supported by followers of Plato. The head of the so-called Second (Middle) Academy, Arcesilaus (315-240 BCE), significantly altered the direction of academic research, engaging in the application of the skeptical method to refute Stoic dogmas. The justification for this shift lay in references to elements of skepticism that were inherent in Socrates, Plato's teacher. Although skepticism did not exhaust the content of Middle Platonism, it played a role in upholding the most skeptical traditions. Arcesilaus advocated the principle of epoché, which entailed a complete abstention from “scientific” judgments regarding the essence of things, with the criterion for the correctness of practical action being its success.

A century after Arcesilaus, Carneades (214-129 BCE) led the Academy, which came to be known as the New Academy under his guidance. Legends abounded regarding his diligence and oratorical skills. Diogenes Laertius notes that Carneades was so engrossed in his studies that he lacked even the time to trim his hair and nails. Carneades also held a skeptical view, believing it impossible to draw a clear boundary between the true and the false; however, some opinions are more credible than others, and it is upon these that one can base rational behavior.

In later times, followers of skepticism formulated tropes (special arguments) in favor of and in defense of their doctrine. The first ten tropes were established by Aenesidemus (1st century BCE), who hailed from Crete and lived in Alexandria, Egypt. Agrippa (2nd century) added another five. These tropes addressed the notion that human judgments rest upon rather uncertain foundations: sensations that often reflect a subjective state, subjective opinions, vague expressions, and the like. It sometimes seems that if only a particular worldview is adopted, arguments in its favor will always be found. Some historians of philosophy contend that skepticism did not constitute a school in the sense of a positive doctrine; rather, it served as a destructive method of dismantling the dogmas of other schools, such as the dogmatism of the Stoics.

Since the time of Pyrrho, skepticism has never left European philosophical thought, and at certain times, its positions have even grown stronger. This was evident during the Renaissance (Michel de Montaigne), in the early modern period (David Hume), and in subsequent centuries.

Stoicism

Stoicism emerged in the late 4th century BCE in Greece (Athens) and gradually became the most widespread school, encompassing both republican and imperial Rome and persisting until the 2nd century CE. The name of the school derives from the Greek word stoa—a portico, a covered colonnade often adorned with frescoes. A stoa was constructed in the Athenian Agora in the 5th century BCE, decorated by the finest artist of that era, Polygnotus. In this stoa, Zeno (336-264 BCE) founded a new school, arriving from Citium in Athens after enduring severe trials of fate. Stoic teaching enjoyed considerable popularity, and the history of Stoicism is often divided into three periods: the Older, Middle, and Younger Stoa. The first includes the classics—Zeno (333-262 BCE), Cleanthes (331-233 BCE), Chrysippus (281-208 BCE); the second includes Panaetius (185-110 BCE), Posidonius (140-51 BCE); and the third comprises Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BCE - 65 CE), Epictetus (50-138), and Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180). While the foundations of the doctrine were laid by the Older Stoa, different emphases were placed on various aspects of the teaching over time. For instance, Roman Stoics focused exclusively on moral issues and personal freedom, largely neglecting natural philosophy, whereas the Middle Stoa devoted significant attention to such matters.

The philosophy of the Stoics stood in stark contradiction to Epicureanism. In opposition to the doctrine of numerous atoms constituting the Epicurean world, they upheld a teaching of the strict unity of the cosmos; instead of positing a reality of emptiness in which atoms moved, they advocated a notion of the universe being fully suffused with bodies and pneuma (pneuma—both a physical and spiritual principle, the world spirit, and even reason), through which the cosmos seemed to breathe corporeally. Rather than positing the existence of multiple worlds, they spoke of only one world, and instead of denying any teleological purpose, they asserted that everything in the world has a goal.

All parts of their teaching were illustrated through the example of a garden, which includes a fence (their logic), trees (physics), and fruits (ethics). Thus, as was the case with the Epicureans, all components of the doctrine ultimately aimed at resolving moral questions. The central idea in Stoic ethics is that a person must consciously and rationally determine their place and purpose within the entire order of the cosmos; everyone should establish what behavior aligns with their nature and their natural relations with other beings. Consequently, the formula for life emerges: “To live in accordance with nature is to live in accordance with reason.”

The Stoics waged an uncompromising battle against the principles of Epicurean doctrine, critiquing hedonism as a pursuit of pleasure and asserting that indulgences cloud the clarity of reason. Nature has endowed animals with the instinct for self-preservation, not with the pursuit of pleasure. All Stoics believed that true happiness lies in liberation from passions, in the tranquility of spirit. They were the first in history to analyze passions, asserting that the primary task is to discern what is good, what is evil, and what is neither. The latter represents a significant sphere of moral neutrality, where the sage’s stance is one of impartiality.

Since, nonetheless, we do harbor elements of unwholesome passions, virtue takes on the character of a struggle against desires that are contrary to nature and reason. It is imperative to uproot these ailments of our soul. Religious submission to necessity, the sole law that governs nature, is entirely consistent with the inner freedom of the rational human spirit.

The entirety of Stoic morality embodies a dual tendency. On one hand, they profess the image of the sage, who regards everything that transpires with complete indifference; a person is deemed so free that they are recognized as having the right to choose between life and death—to end their existence if unbearable suffering awaits them (and many Stoics indeed took their own lives). On the other hand, Stoicism harbors a significant humanistic tendency defined by the moral imperative towards connections with others. Hence, there emerges a duty to live for the whole, to treat others with humanity, to embody the idea of universal brotherhood, and to aspire towards a cosmopolitan state.

According to the Stoics, the wise person is one who has attained complete apathy; nothing external can disturb them, they are unacquainted with anger or regret, fear or suffering, for they have risen above the cosmos as if they were a god. Like a god, they exist in a state of unattainable greatness of spirit. While this might suggest an individualistic orientation in ethics, the Stoics simultaneously propagated a moral universalism. All people are brothers, as children of a single father. National and social distinctions are thus nullified. All humanity constitutes members of a single divine body.