545. On Moral Ends- by Marcus Tullius Cicero Translation by Raphael Woolf. Practical reasoning for a Roman meant applying the mind to problems of state, applying the mind to one’s community, applying the mind to the political process. For a Roman it was not enough to make the mind sharp and keep it that way, it was a matter of having one’s emotions and attitude in agreement with practical reasoning. This was virtue to the Romans. Thus the Romans had no interest in philosophical systems which offered no guidance about right action, i.e. moral conduct. Philosophy must be related to life with, in and part of the community. My mind is not for me alone. I have obligations.
Cicero discusses in this book what is the ultimate or final goal in life to which all should direct their efforts? What does nature pursue as the highest goal to be sought?
I have used the word nature. By this Cicero means human nature. This particular book by Cicero covers the three philosophical systems current in his lifetime: Epicureanism, Stoicism and Academic (Peripatetics). Epicureanism is presented by Lucius Torquatus and then critiqued by Cicero. Stoicism is presented by Marcus Cato and then examined by Cicero. The Academic system (Peripatetic) is presented by Marcus Piso and then questioned by Cicero. All three sought to answer the question: what is essential for happiness?
Epicureans would reply that pleasure is to be sought and pain avoided; they put much faith in senses. Wisdom , courage, temperance etc. are useful only in that they relate to attainment of pleasure or avoidance of pain. Justice is worthy of choice in so far as it affords abundance of pleasure. Cicero finds major difficulty here. Cicero questions a system of thought which one would be embarrassed to state publicly. Justice is useful only when it applies to one’s particular circumstance. This system is not outward reaching. It is selfish. One refrains from wrongdoing only to avoid suffering harm. Epicureans claimed that their system freed one from fear, fear of religion and fear of death. But Cicero points out that if pain is greatest evil, then fear of it is always present because it can inflict us at any moment, thus one lives life in fear. Epicureans contend that pleasure is physical and pain is physical. That is it. There is nothing else. Existence in a sense is defined by this. But they say that Gods exist but are devoid of body. Physical pleasure is impossible for them. In fact they say that something exists which they believe does not exist.
Next are the Stoics. Cicero begins thus. Cicero suggests that there is not any real difference between Stoics and Peripatetics. Either Stoics believe that virtue is the only good but that life is better with health, wealth, and other such external goods. Or Stoics agree that virtue is the only good but health etc. do not make life better. Cato begins his discussion of Stoicism. That is valuable whatever is accordance with nature, human nature. Pursuing this leads to wisdom. It is a life long process. This is the supreme good. To this theory learning is very important. This allows one through study to learn what human nature is. The wise person is happy. The only evil is what is immoral. Wise person uses virtue to discover what is right/wrong. No evil can befall a wise person. To a stoic knowledge is not the greatest good. Living according to nature is. Life must relate to the human experience. That is why knowledge is not the greatest good in and of itself because it does relate to humans at large. Stoic logic is vert tightly constructed. It is almost logically perfect. What about health? Does it have any value? Stoics set up a system of ranking. Some have positive value, others are the opposite others are neutral. This system Cicero attacks as being inconsistent. Health is not a virtue but t is to be preferred. Peripatetics say it is a good. What is the difference? Cicero also says that this came about because Stoicism is not realistic about human nature. Its dedication to logic has allowed human nature and an understanding of it to be sacrificed to logic. because of their devotion to logic, for their argument to be tightly constructed there can be no degrees of a wrong. All wrongs are equally bad. Stoics do not view a human as a whole. The mind is far above the body and one can be happy without bodily health etc. Logic by its very requirements means that the ornate style must be sacrificed. Thus it is difficult for Stoics to gain adherents. This point in modern times is often pooh poohed. But I think Cicero has a point here. Too Often I have seen scientists and such whose case is so poorly made that even though their suggestion should be followed it is ignored. All because they have no clue how to make their case palatable and acceptable. Cicero again makes his case that the only real difference between Stoics and Peripatetics is that of terminology.
Piso presents Peripatetic system. This system is very close to Stoicism. Very close. Humans consist of mind and body. Both must be brought to perfection. The more important of the two is the mind. Here the Peripatetics abandon the tight construction to which Stoics adhere. This Cicero informs leaves them open to criticism. It is not stated but it seems that logic does not satisfy all needs for a human to reach perfection. Cicero was one smart cookie. No one system of thought has all of the answers. The analogy which Piso uses is fascinating and has ramifications for understanding Roman perspective of humans interacting with nature as we think of nature. Piso talks of the vine. Suppose the vine acquired ability to care for itself. It would now seek to do for itself what vine keeper did before. The vine would not have the same objective as vine keeper. Its highest good would be to live in accordance with its newly acquired nature. Peripatetics advocated a pursuit of knowledge which never loses sight of the fact that we are humans and must relate to the human condition. Human nature is innately civic and social.
No comments:
Post a Comment