Hermarchus’ treatise Against Empedocles and the dispute of the Epicureans and the Stoics on the origin of morality
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2020.315Abstract
The article analyzes the theory of the origin of morality, presented by the Epicurean Hermarchus in his treatise “Against Empedocles” (Porph. De abstin. I, 7–12). The author expresses doubt on the established point of view that Hermarchus, in criticizing Empedocles, actually meant to criticize the philosophical schools of his day, and did not polemicize with the Pythagoreans and the followers of Empedocles, but with the Stoics, whom he did not name, but had in mind. Exploring the Peripatetic and Epicurean tradition of using terms close to the concept of oikeiōsis, which was introduced by Hermarchus to explain the prohibition of killing a person by another person, the author of the article expresses the opinion that Stoic Chrysippus, criticizing the teaching of the Epicureans about the aspiration for pleasure as a person’s primary impulse in his essay “On the ultimate goal”, used this Epicurean term in his theory of the origin of morality (Diog. Laert. VII, 85). Such an “interception” or reinterpretation of concepts was a fairly common device used by the Stoics in a polemic against Epicureanism. Hermarchus, unlike the Stoics, who understood oikeiōsis exclusively in the context of the emergence of individual self-awareness and feelings of self-preservation, spoke about the social meaning of oikeiōsis, which described people’s perception of each other within the human community and shows the impossibility of such an attitude towards living beings outside this community (to animals). Later, the term oikeiōsis was considered to be Stoic, and its creation was attributed to Zeno.
Keywords:
Hermarchus, Epicureanism, oikeiōsis, Stoicism, Chrysippus, Cicero, origin of morality, doctrine of the “primary impulse”
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Литература
1. Shakhnovich, M. M. (2019), The polemical practice in ancient Epicureanism, Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Философия и конфликтология, т. 35, вып. 3, с. 461–471.
2. Krohn, K. W. G., (1921), Der Epikureer Hermarchos, Berlin: Weidmann.
3. Gigante, M., (1983), Ricerche Filodemee, Naples: Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore.
4. Obbink, D. (1988), Hermarchus, Against Empedocles, The Classical Quarterly, vol. 38 (2), pp. 428–435.
5. Порфирий (2011), Сочинения, пер. Сидаш, Т. Г., СПб.: Изд-во С.-Петерб. гос. ун-та.
6. Фрагменты ранних стоиков (2007), т. III, ч. 1, пер. и комм. Столяров, А. А., М.: Греко-латинский кабинет Ю. А. Шичалина.
7. Фрагменты ранних стоиков (2010), т. III, ч. 2, пер. и комм. Столяров, А. А., М.: Греко-латинский кабинет Ю. А. Шичалина.
8. Inwood, B. (1983), The two forms of oikeiōsis in Arius and the Stoa, in Fortenbaugh, W. W. (ed.), On Stoic and Peripatetic Ethics, New Brunswick: Transaction Books, pp. 190–201.
9. Engberg-Pedersen, T. (1990), The Stoic Theory of Oikeiosis: Moral Development and Social interaction in Early Stoic Philosophy, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
10. Гришин, А. Ю. (2018), Взаимосвязь физики, логики и этики в учении ранней Стои, дис. …канд. филос. наук, М.
11. Longo Auricchio, F. (1988), Ermarco. Frammenti. La Scuola di Epicuro, vol. 6. Naples: Bibliopis.
12. Alberti, A. (1995), The Epicurean Theory of Law and Justice, in Laks, A. and Schofield, M. (eds), Justice and Generosity, Cambridge University Press, pp. 161–190.
13. Striker, G. (1983), The role of oikeiosis in Stoic ethics, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, vol. 1, pp. 145–168.
14. Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R. A. (1940), Greek-English Lexicon, revised and augmented throughout by Jones, H. S., with the assistance of McKenzie, R., Oxford: Clarendon Press. URL: https://logeion.uchicago.edu (дата обращения: 16.04.2020).
15. Lévy, C. (2020), Penser les fondements de l’éthique sociale dans les deux derniers siècles de la République romaine, Philosophical Readings, vol. XII, no. 1, pp. 13–21.
16. Lévy, C. (1992), Cicero Academicus, recherché sur les académiques et sur la philosophie cicéronienne, Rome: École Française de Rome.
17. Цицерон (2000),О пределах блага и зла. Парадоксы стоиков, пер. Федоров, Н. А., М.: РГГУ.
18. Столяров, А. А. (1995), Стоя и стоицизм, М.: АО Ками-групп.
19. Никольский, Б. М. (2002), Антиох Аскалонский и учение об οἰκείωσις, в Историко-философский ежегодник, М.: Наука, c. 112‒134.
20. Поленц, М. (2015), Стоя. История духовного движения, СПб.: Quadrivium.
21. Dirlmeier, F. (1937), Die Oikeiosis–Lehre Theophrasts, Philologus,Supplement, bd. XXX, Heft 1, Leipzig: Dieterich.
22. Pohlenz, M. (1940), Grundfragen der stoischen Philosophie, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
23. Pembroke, S. G. (1971), Oikeiosis, in Long, A. A. (ed.), Problems in Stoicism, London: Athlone Press, pp. 114–149.
24. Striker, G. (1983), The role of oikeiosis in Stoic ethics, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, vol. 1, pp. 145–168.
25. Brunschwig, J. (1986), The cradle argument in Epicureanism and Stoicism, in Schofield, M. and Striker, G. (eds.), The Norms of Nature: Studies in Hellenistic Ethics, Cambridge University Press, pp. 113–144.
26. Vander Waerdt, P. A. (1988), Hermarchus and the Epicurean Genealogy of Morals, Transactions of the American Philological Association, vol. 118, pp. 87‒106.
27. Kechagia, E. (2010), Rethinking a professional rivalry: early Epicureans against the Stoia, The Classical Quarterly, New Series, vol. 60 (1), pp. 132–155.
28. Nikolsky, B. (2001), Epicurus on Pleasure, Phronesis, vol. 46, pp. 463–464.
29. Kerferd, G. B. (1972), The search for personal identity in stoic thought, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, vol. 55 (1), pp. 177–196.
30. Obbink, D. (1988), The Origin of Greek Sacrifice: Theophrastus on Religion and Cultural History, in Fortenbaugh, W. W. and Sharples, R. W. (eds), Theophrastean Studies: On Natural Science, Physics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion, and Rhetoric, Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities, 3, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Books, pp. 183–222.
31. Sedley, D. N. (1984), The Character of Epicurus “On Nature”, Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia, Naples, pp. 381–387.
References
1. Shakhnovich, M. M. (2019), The polemical practice in ancient Epicureanism, Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Filosofiia i konfliktologiia, vol. 35, iss. 3, pp. 461–471.
2. Krohn, K. W. G. (1921), Der Epikureer Hermarchos, Berlin: Weidmann.
3. Gigante, M. (1983), Ricerche Filodemee, Naples: Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore.
4. Obbink, D. (1988), Hermarchus, Against Empedocles, The Classical Quarterly, vol. 38 (2), pp. 428–435.
5. Porfirij (2011), Works, transl. by Sidash, T. G., St. Petersburg: Izdatel‘stvo SPbGU. (In Russian)
6. Excerpts of Early Stoics (2007), vol. III, pt. 1, transl. and comm. by Stolyarov, A. A., Moscow: Greko-latinskii cabinet Yu. A. Shichalina. (In Russian)
7. Excerpts of Early Stoics (2010), vol. III, pt. 2, transl. and comm. by Stolyarov, A. A., Moscow: Greko-latinskii cabinet Yu. A. Shichalina. (In Russian)
8. Inwood, B. (1983), The two forms of oikeiōsis in Arius and the Stoa, in Fortenbaugh, W. W. (ed.), On Stoic and Peripatetic Ethics, New Brunswick: Transaction Books, pp. 190–201.
9. Engberg-Pedersen, T. (1990), The Stoic Theory of Oikeiosis: Moral Development and Social interaction in Early Stoic Philosophy, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
10. Grishin, A. Yu. (2018), The relationship of physics, logic and ethics in the teachings of the Stoia, Thesis, Moscow, 168 p. (In Russian)
11. Longo Auricchio, F. (1988), Ermarco. Frammenti. La Scuola di Epicuro, vol. 6, Naples: Bibliopis.
12. Alberti, A. (1995), The Epicurean Theory of Law and Justice, in Laks, A. and Schofield, M. (eds), Justice and Generosity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 161–190.
13. Striker, G. (1983), The role of oikeiosis in Stoic ethics, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, vol. 1, pp. 145–168.
14. Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R. A. (1940), Greek-English Lexicon, revised and augmented throughout by Jones, H. S. with the assistance of McKenzie, R., Oxford: Clarendon Press. Available at: https://logeion.uchicago.edu (accessed: 16.04.2020).
15. Lévy, C. (2020), Penser les fondements de l’éthique sociale dans les deux derniers siècles de la République romaine, Philosophical Readings, vol. XII, no. 1, pp. 13‒21.
16. Lévy, C. (1992), Cicero Academicus, recherché sur les académiques et sur la philosophie cicéronienne, Rome: École Française de Rome.
17. Cicero (2000), On the ends of good and evil. Stoic paradoxes, transl. by Fedorov, N. A., Moscow: RGGU Publ. (In Russian)
18. Stolyarov, A. A. (1995), Stoia and stoicism, Moscow: AO Kami-grupp Publ. (In Russian)
19. Nikol’skii, B. M. (2002), Antiochus of Ascalon and teaching about οἰκείωσις, Istoriko-filosofskii ezhegodnik, Moscow: Nauka, pp. 112–134. (In Russian)
20. Pohlenz, M. (2015), Die Stoa: Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung, rus. ed., St. Petersburg: Quadrivium. (In Russian)
21. Dirlmeier, F. (1937), Die Oikeiosis–Lehre Theophrasts, Philologus, Supplement, bd. XXX, Heft 1, Leipzig: Dieterich.
22. Pohlenz, M. (1940), Grundfragen der stoischen Philosophie, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
23. Pembroke, S. G. (1971), Oikeiosis, in Long, A. A. (ed.), Problems in Stoicism, London: Athlone Press, pp. 114–149.
24. Striker, G. (1983), The role of oikeiosis in Stoic ethics, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, vol. 1, pp. 145–168.
25. Brunschwig, J. (1986), The cradle argument in Epicureanism and Stoicism, in Schofield, M. and Striker, G. (eds), The Norms of Nature: Studies in Hellenistic Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 113–144.
26. Vander Waerdt, P. A. (1988), Hermarchus and the Epicurean Genealogy of Morals, Transactions of the American Philological Association, vol. 118, pp. 87–106.
27. Kechagia, E. (2010), Rethinking a professional rivalry: early Epicureans against the Stoia, The Classical Quarterly, New Series, vol. 60 (1), pp. 132–155.
28. Nikolsky, B. (2001), Epicurus on Pleasure, Phronesis, vol. 46, pp. 463–464.
29. Kerferd, G. B. (1972), The search for personal identity in stoic thought, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, vol. 55 (1), pp. 177–196.
30. Obbink, D. (1988), The Origin of Greek Sacrifice: Theophrastus on Religion and Cultural History, in Fortenbaugh, W. W. and Sharples, R. W. (eds), Theophrastean Studies: On Natural Science, Physics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion, and Rhetoric, Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities, 3, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Books, pp. 183–222.
31. Sedley, D. N. (1984), The Character of Epicurus “On Nature”, Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia, Naples, pp. 381–387.
Downloads
Published
2020-09-30
How to Cite
Shakhnovich, M. M. (2020). Hermarchus’ treatise Against Empedocles and the dispute of the Epicureans and the Stoics on the origin of morality. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 36(3), 594–604. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2020.315
Issue
Section
Religious studies
License
Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.
