713. De Finibus 4 by Cicero. Cicero hesitates to criticize Stoicism. But he confesses that there is much that he does not understand. Cato suggests that the difficulty is inherent in the subject. Cicero wonders why then he is able to understand everything the Peripatetics say.
Cicero points out that both Peripatetics and the Stoics derive from the same group of teachers. This includes Zeno- all maintain that we were born suitable to these virtues: justice, truth, temperance, courage,, that we eagerly seek these and have a desire for knowledge. We were born to be with other humans, to form societies. Often philosophy is divided into three parts which was retrained by Zeno:
1. Ethics- by which moral character is formed
2. The end of Good is delayed (for such takes time)
3. Civil Science- (politics)
Cicero continues: what the Peripatetics state is clear and charming. Stoics are dry and constantly plucking spines (section 6- this may be another example of common speech picked up for scholarly use). The Peripatetics excel at exhortation, consolation, advice, plans. To do this they practice two forms of speaking- general and specific. But Zeno abandoned this.
The Stoics, Cicero says, are devoted to logic and the pursuit of truth but have abandoned charm and interest- this makes them difficult to hear.
The Stoic idea that the entire world is one town, that only the wise person is rich, the power of virtue, are very important topics but the person hearing is annoyed by syllogisms and the absence of energy in speech.
Logic (disserendi ratio) and the natural sciences (cognitio nature) are now covered.
Logic was established long ago- aspects of it include the creation of definitions, the art of defining, de contrariis (Law of Contradiction), it (logic) also gives us the classifications and subdivisions of those classifications (argumentum/conclusum). Deductive reasoning begins with what is self evident, then flows methodical arrangement, then what is true in successive cases is the conclusion.
Cicero seems to put more faith in deductive reasoning than in syllogisms which he says can be deceptive. Peripatetics urge the pursuit of truth using reason combined with the senses. These believe that reason and the senses must work together.
Two skills (sciences) cover reasoning and oratory (persuasion, argument, thought patterns):
1. The science of producing thoughts appropriate to the subject at hand (invent).
2. The science of logic.
The Stoics practice logic and do it extremely well but neglect inventio. Inventio adds variety to an argument, charm, interest. This avoids singing the same tune over and over. Nature, the matter of a subject, alone is not enough- the art/ science is needed.
(Take the time to think about this and do not be fooled- Cicero does not simply mean that Stoicism lacks pizzaz or spark but is deficient in ability to take on the subject of humanity fully with out those things mentioned. Humans are too complex to understand by one approach alone.)
Cicero points out that Epicureans have an interest in natural philosophy. It is used to dispel a fear of death and superstition. To the Stoics and the Peripatetics and others there is also value in knowledge of the heavens to bring about a certain absence of arrogance. The avoidance of arrogance is avoided when people notice how much there is a sense of regularity or moderation with the Gods, how much order. A knowledge of the heavens brings about lofty thoughts, when observing the works of the Gods. This knowledge also brings about justice, when a person realizes the plan, will and power of God(s).
The study of natural philosophy brings joy at every turn as we learn new things.
In section 12, there is an interesting discussion on Aristotle’s 5th element from which reason and intelligence arise. Zeno said that it was fire. Cicero agrees that there is something more than cells to the mind (to put it in modern terms).
Cicero’s point is that there is no need for a name change, as these two groups are the same.
Now begins assessment of summum bonum (ethics/Chief Good/final end)
Polemo maintained that the Chief Good is to live in harmony with nature
The Stoics take this formula of Polemo and give it three interpretations:
1. to live having knowledge of things which happen in nature
2. to live performing all or most all middle duties
3. to live enjoying all or as many as possible of those things which are in harmony with nature.
Number 1 and 2 are not the same says Cicero. Not all things in 3 would be under the control of the wise person.
Cicero then gives a brief run down of the system of Aristotle:
1. Every animal desires self preservation for safety and preservation of its own kind.
2. Humans have added art of living which assists Nature to protect what Nature has given and to acquire what it lacks.
3. They divide the nature of humans into mind and body.
4. Each of these must be sought for their own sake.
5. They place animus (intellect) first in importance.
Wisdom is the guardian of the whole person. Mind is to assist and protect both. The needs of the body are easier to figure out (We know when we are hungry or cold). The needs of the mind they sought with greater care (We do not sense hunger for learning the same way as we detect the need for food.)
In the above are the seeds for justice. Every offspring loves it parents. This has been bestowed by Nature. From this arises family affection. From this evolved the virtues. From these virtues a greatness of mind by which easily one is able to endure luck for that which really matters is under the control of the wise person.
These basic principles stir a desire for importance of goods (virtues) by thinking of obscure aspects of Nature, because the mind loves to think. This promotes discussion and argument. Only humans have sense of modesty and reverence and a desire for companionship and a concern to do the right thing at the right time. From these simple beginnings( love of parents) comes temperance, justice, discretion and all the moral virtues.
Zeno, Cicero points out, agrees with all of this. But he Peripatetics place eyesight, health, absence of pain etc among the goods but to Zeno these are no different from their opposites. But these are preferred. Cicero’s point is that Zeno knit picks over terms when he says that eyesight is preferred but not among the goods. The Peripatetics says these (health for example) should be sought but Zeno says they are to be taken. To Zeno as a result all sins (evils, too) would be equal. A sin is a sin.
Cicero points out that it does not make much sense to say that all sins are equal. It would be difficult to say in public that exile, confiscation of property is not an evil- only something to be rejected, not avoided. Cicero then proceeds to make up a Stoic version of a peroration in a speech.
Panaetius, a Stoic, did not use that stronger term of preferred over desired.
Quick summary of common ground between Stoics and Peripatetics:
love of self
preservation of self
must study ourselves to know how to achieve Chief Good.
we are humans consisting of animus and body
From these are derived the Chief End. If these are true, then those things in accordance with Nature must be attained in the highest possible numbers.
The weakness of Stoicism, Cicero says, rests with their insistence of removing the mind (animus) from the body. To them there is only one virtue- that of the mind.
Chrysippus conducted an extensive survey of animus and assigned to humans the sole characteristic of mind and nothing else. But Cicero points out that bodily needs can not be as insignificant as Stoics claim, since the mind can not exist without the body. Thus it seems silly to say that a wise person would choose a life with some small thing added but would not be the happier for it. This idea of the Stoics making all evil equal, all goods equal does not pan out. Any man would find the rack worse than losing a penny.
Cicero points out that each part of life may be small but it is still part of life. It may not be the most important but nevertheless part of life.
Cicero places weakness of Stoicism in claiming to be in harmony with Nature but in reality by viewing humans as mind alone denys one of the primary characteristics of human. By not placing the highest good in the whole of human, Stoics deny the other aspects.
Then too Stoics stumble when they say that the End is the same for all animals. Cicero has problems with this. To be consistent, then, we must say that each animal has an end specific to itself, just as humans. Although humans have a body, the Stoics dismiss this because the primary feature is the mind.
Cicero must have loved art for he sure uses it frequently in discussions. This one is no different.
Just as a sculptor frees a subject from stone so wisdom takes a human as given by Nature and sets it free. If a human is nothing but intellect, then the end is virtue (intellect). If nothing but body then health, absence of pain etc are the end. But the subject at hand is a human. Do we not need to investigate the entire aspect of what it is to be human? We need to observe Nature carefully. She may discard the stem and leaves after the seeds have formed on a head of wheat but she does not do the same with humans. She leads a human to the practice of reason. She gave humans reason in addition to the senses but does not discard the senses when reason has been achieved and begins to dominate.
Cicero sets out to show that although reason is human’s primary trait, the human may place primary importance on the intellect but will protect those other needs for the sake of the primary trait.
Stoic insistence on this terminology of preferred and taking cause them to make two goals, not one as they claim. (Cicero counts this as a contradiction.) The Stoic view is that virtue can not be established if those things outside of virtue are included in living well. The view of the Stoics is that the art of living consists in virtue (intellect, and nothing else). Cicero’s point is :to ignore the whole human is to end up redefining virtue.
To consider a human as only intellect ignores that part of human which is evident before reason takes hold. (Think of a baby- it screams when hungry because the sensation of hunger is the driving force- reason has nothing to do with this. Reason only comes later, slowly.)
Stoics by establishing things to be preferred are in harmony with Nature but when they deny that these are part of happiness, they seem to act contrary to Nature. Then Cicero critiques the Stoic sentence- moral worth (honestum) is the only good. I.e.- the end of goods is in one virtue (the intellect). In fact in their view virtue can not be sketched unless moral worth is numbered as the one and only ingredient.
To avoid this problem, the Stoics should have begun with the common ground that there are natural instincts. To say at one moment that moral worth is the only good but at another to say that by exercising choice we bring virtue into existence is a contradiction. By making virtue an act of choice Stoics make virtue not an end in itself but something sought to gain something else.
Then comes a very valuable sentence:
Nam omnia quae sumenda quaeque legenda aut optanda sunt inesse debent in summa bonorum, ut is qui eam adeptus sit nihil praeterea desideret.=
For everything which must be taken and which must be selected or must be desired ought to be among the highest of goods in order that the person who has obtained it would desire nothing else.
(In my view this best sums up Cicero’s view on learning.)
So Cicero’s point is that the essence and purpose of humans must be found in the Nature of humans.
To the Stoics natural desires had nothing to do with the good life. Stoicism is so rigid and so devoid of charm that it is difficult to excite someone to learn that pain is no evil. Cicero’s criticism of Stoicism rests on its excessive fondness for logic which ends up denying the reality of those qualities which are part of being human. Cicero observes that Zeno’s first principle recedes from Nature when virtue alone is the only good.
Cicero then give s a more full view of the Peripatetic system as a critique of the Stoic:
The mind has an appetition (desire) when something seems to be in harmony with Nature. All facets of humanness play into the good life. But virtue (the Stoic intellect) ,indeed , is the most important.
While making his points, Cicero, more likely than not pointed to a portrait of Polemo which was probably in or near the garden. It may have been a herm.
Cicero suggests that it is incongruent to use Peripatetic system but simply change or add terms and then sever ties with the original system which is what Stoics do in Cicero’s view.
Cicero displays his skill with a prosopopeia. He takes on the part of Polemo and says- you, Cato, have received so much from these people and have been a fine service to the state. Yet, you could have done even more if you had used methods of speech employed by the Peripatetics. (it allows Cicero to offer a criticism of Cato without being rude.)
Cicero cleverly uses charming language to reinforce the points made above (61-63 and elsewhere)- look at expetendam negent esse. Esse ripped from its mooring to expetendam adds great force to his point- they deny that health must be desired - as if to say, with a gulp, does this make any sense? This is an example of eloquence used not just as a weapon but a means for clear expression. Thus Cicero by using his skills at argument highlights the strengths and weaknesses of Stoicism. Cicero (63) then takes several examples from philosophy and these are charming, too.
The Stoic principle of all or nothing sounds foolish when applied to the lives of people.
Stoic logic is so rigid that a person would not see the need to make the attempt to attain virtue.
Cicero says that it is a contradiction to say that moral worth (honestum) is the only good when there is an instinct (appetito) put in us by Nature for things suitable for living.
