BOOK TWO
Ancient Greek Idealist & Materialist Philosophy
By Franz J. T. Lee
PANDEMONIUM BOOKS & PUBLICATIONS.
Merida, Venezuela, 2003.
© 2003
Franz J. T. Lee All Rights Reserved.
The Eclipse of Ancient
Greek Materialism: Scepticism, Stoicism
Pathemata mathemata.
Sufferings are lessons.
Veni Creator Spiritus.
Latin
Hymn.
Urbi et orbi. Fiat experimentum in
corpore vili.
(To
the city and the universe, to everyone!
Let experiment be made on a worthless body.)
Lucretius.
Stoicism
– Ruling Class Ideology
In
a previous chapter, we had already introduced Stoicism. We will now
continue to elaborate its historical process, as an offshoot of Cynicism.
Essentially, it had much in common with its canine matrix, but it also
had Promethean-Heracleitean fiery roots. We will expound the praxico-theoretical
existence of this philosophic school which, for centuries, had coexisted
with Platonism, Aristotelianism and Epicureanism, but also with Plotinism
and Neo-Platonism. In this Chapter, we will concentrate on Early and
Middle Stoicism, on its ethical and religious periods, including its
eclecticism and syncretism. But, we will also illuminate Plotinism, Neo-Aristotelianism
and Neo-Platonism. With this chapter, we will conclude this book of ancient
Graeco-Roman idealism, and end with a brief, general, synoptic conclusion.
As
far as its radical origin was concerned, Stoicism was contemporaneous
with Epicureanism. In reality, it was a synthesis of Heracleitean Hylozoism
and Cynicism, but in its evolutionary process it very soon lost its
panvitalistic and panpsychic philosophic antecedents. This simply means
that it had discarded its materialist negation, and thus degenerated
into a religious-idealist affirmation within Graeco-Roman philosophy,
in fact, into feudalist ideology. We can distinguish three main periods
of Stoicism:
a)
The Early Stoics (mainly ethical, and still materialist)
- Zeno of Citium, Cleanthes of Assos, Chrysippus
of Seloi or Tarsus, Ariston of Chios, Diogenes of Babylonia,
Apollodorus of Athens, Aristarchus of Samos and Eratosthenes
of Cyrene;
b)
The Middle Stoics (mainly eclectic and syncretistic) - mainly
Panaetius of Rhodes and Posidonius of Syria;
c)
The
Late Stoics (mainly religious) - L.
Annaeus Seneca of Corduba, L. Annaeus Cornutus (or Phurnutus),
Persius, C. Musinius Rufus, Epitectus
and Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (known as Marc Aurel).
Now,
let us begin to elucidate the essence of Early Stoicism around 320
- 210 B.C. as expounded by its main proponents. It is apposite to note
that Stoicism, in comparison to its contemporary schools of philosophy,
that is, to Aristotelianism, Platonism and Epicureanism, was the least
Greek - most of the early Stoics were Syrians, and the later ones were
Romans. Furthermore, Stoicism had appealed to nearly all the ancient
Graeco-Roman rulers who had succeeded Alexander the Great. Consequently,
contrary to Cynicism, it was essentially a ruling class ideology.
Early Stoicism: From Heracleitean
Hylozoism to Sceptic Platonism
Zeno
of Citium (on Cyprus) was a Phoenician, and he lived from 332 - 262
B. C. Since 312 B. C., as pupil of the eminent Cynic, Crates, he spent
his early life in Athens. Probably, because his family was engaged in
commerce, it was business interests which had guided him to Greece. Originally,
in his philosophic studies, Cynicism appealed to him, but later he turned
to eclecticism, to such a degree that the Platonists openly accused him
of plagiarism. Notwithstanding, as we will note, Zeno was the most hylozoistic
materialist Stoic in the history of this specific philosophic movement,
and he certainly merits philosophic attention and praxico-theoretical critique.
In
a previous chapter, we have explained the relation of the Heracleitean
lógos to objective Truth and Práxis-Theory.
The philosophic point of departure of Zeno’s Stoicism was precisely
the Heracleitean world lógos, the anima mundi, which regulated the Pythagorean Cosmic
Order and Justice. Zeno, however, transformed this fiery lógos and attributed to it the
connotation of a deterministic cosmic nomos. Logically, this resulted in the resurrection
of Cynic fatalism, and in the creation of a Stoic version of Cynicism.
Moreover,
he made emphatic the Cynic belief in the existence of objective reality,
and categorically stated that the world is real, solid and material:
„I mean that this table is a solid matter“.
In fact, he became more „Cynical“ then the Cynics themselves, he maintained
that even Socrates’ arete and Heracleitus’ Cosmic Justice were „quite
solid“. However, according to him, Anánke
regulated and guided everything, hence, his cosmic determinism left
nothing to Tyche, to Chance. Ontologically, he accepted the Heracleitean
pýr as the principle of Everything,
even of human virtue and action.
Cosmologically, he concluded that the other three elements of
Greek philosophy-chemistry - air, water and earth - had eventually emerged
from the archaic principle, Fire. In this respect, he adopted the Heracleitean
ekpyrosis - apokatastasis (Evolution-Involution); he
argued that, due to eventual cosmic conflagration, in accordance with
heimarmeme, everything has to return
to archaic Fire. However, he had considered the evolutionary-involutionary
process to be an eternal cycle, a repetition of the same
cosmos ad infinitum; consequently, nothing really
new was happening under the sun. In spite of the fragmentary information
which we possess about the Heracleitean panta rhei and the evolutionary-involutionary process,
logically, dialogically, we could conclude that not only was the Sun
„new“ every day, but this New was continuing even when there did not
exist any „sun“ or „day“ anymore, that is, it was surpassing into material
transvolution.
Thus, the differentia specifica between the cosmology of
Heracleitus and that of Zeno of Citium was that the former implicitly
assumed a spiral genesis-palingenesis, and that the latter explicitly
postulated an eternal cycling or recycling of the world and its processes.
Furthermore,
in the naturalist, hylozoistic tradition, the Stoic lógos, as elucidated by Zeno, did
not exist apart from the lonesome, lonely universe, it was an intrinsic
material part of Material Being, it was the pneuma or nous of the Cosmos. Later Plotinism
and Neo-Platonism would convert this material lógos into a Divine Supreme Being
or divine emanation of Original Light. The human anima was considered to be part
and parcel of this Stoic world lógos.
Concerning
individual essence and existence, at birth, the individual human soul
emerged as a tabula
rasa - contrary
to the Socratic-Platonic soul -, as a clean, unwritten tablet. In a
Democritean sense, external objects imprinted conceptions into the human
soul. Memory was explained as the material process of earlier conceptual
imprints which were transformed into generalizations, judgements and
conclusions, and which could be reproduced when necessary. Also, for the
early Stoics, Truth became a conception which „comprehends“ its object.
Truth was not ideology, lies, it understood the world, world events.
It feared nothing, it had nothing to hide. Moreover, in contradistinction
to, not in contradiction to, Platonic-Aristotelian dualism, early Stoic
philosophy propagated pantheism and natural, perceptive antagonisms such
as sensuousness and suprasensuousness; anánke and teleological lógos, hýle and morphé. Of course, such philosophic,
universal, dialectical contradictions, more precisely, such dialogical
diagories, we have already encountered in the Aristotelian doctrine of
Substance and Form.
The Middle and Late Stoics simply equated inconvenient contradictory
elements, for example, Substance and Form, Essence and Appearance; for
them, all these were not contradictions; in the final analysis, they
were one and the same thing. Anánke simply
became Fatum, and Human Praxis-Theory experienced a philosophic
metastasis, it was converted into Cynic fatalism.
But,
let us examine much closer what Zeno understood by Philosophy, by
the Eros of and for Sophia, Wisdom. He divided the latter into Ethics,
Logics and Physics, hence, he followed the Platonic-Aristotelian
trinity; of course, beyond doubt, at the apex of Early Stoic Philosophy
we encounter Ethics; like Epicurus, he declared eudaimonia to be the ultimate goal of
human endeavour. But, as we have alluded already, contrary to the Cynics
and to the Epicureans, under Promethean-Heracleitean influence, Zeno
taught that arete was material, hence, was
directly related to earthly Human Práxis-Theory; however, that,
according to our assessment, Labour progressively had converted the latter
into feudalist, capitalist Practice-Ideology, that is another topic.
Consequently, Zeno, the father of Stoicism, surely did not teach
counter-praxico-theoretical fatalism and pessimism. As noted above, Arete was related, was linked to
human thought and action, directly to Práxis, was an active, healthy,
sane interchange between Nature and Society. Furthermore, it follows
logically, that because the human soul was part of the world lógos, hence, human endeavours
had to be placed in the service of real, true humanity and the Cosmos.
However, in this sense, and on a higher dialectical spiral plane, Zeno
again adopted the Cynic „Back to Nature“ philosophic principle. Within
this context, the humanism of Zeno tried to encompass all ancient Mediterranean
peoples, Hellenes, barbarians and slaves; thus, this humanistic element
within Zenoism formed part of the quasi-materialist Negation itself
within early Stoic ideology. Nonetheless, eventually the degeneration of
early Stoicism produced cosmopolitanism that later favoured Roman „imperialism“,
and progressively, in its late religious form, it decayed as a religious
Philosophy of State, it became a mental holocaust, an abominable Inquisition,
Roman Catholicism, the cruel, inhuman superstructure of obscure absolutism,
the eerie spectre of obscurantist European feudalism. Certainly, Christianity
and Roman Catholicism had other historical roots, for example, in the Messianic
Principle, in Jewish religious doctrines, but their philosopico-theological
contents can directly be traced and seen in the superstructure of the progressive
unfolding of primitive capitalism in slavocracy and feudalism, in Platonism,
Stoicism and Plotinism.
Because
only a few fragments of Zeno’s life work are extant, it is very difficult
to reconstruct his philosophic principles. Nevertheless, from what
we know about him, we could conclude that he was a staunch hylozoist.
Ex quocunque capite, it becomes very evident
that he had considered the lógos as Supreme Being to be a material corporeal
substance, to be the Promethean-Luciferean fiery Mind of,
and not over, or above the Cosmos. Of course, we should not forget that
in the final analysis, Zeno, like everybody else, postulated a single,
universal principle, with all its logical implications and complications:
a Universal One, Matter = Spirit, or, which is the same thing, Spirit =
Matter. Not a single ruling class philosopher, across the millennia, ever
even considered more than one postulate; all their archaí are universals, no matter what they called
them.
And, this unilateral, uni-cameral, monolithic -- intensively productive,
extensively static -- ruling class "thinking" and "thought", formed the
essential conditio sine qua non for the labour
process, for capital accumulation, for capitalist wealth and power, for
economic exploitation, political domination, social discrimination, "shock
and awe" militarization and total human alienation. Currently, across a
transhistoric view, we could see that all these brought the very human species
to the brink of total annihilation. If this universal, archaic problem
can not be solved, be resolved, well, then homo sapiens
sapiens would have to bid farewell to sapientia, to Planet Earth, to Universal Life.
Even R. Septimus Floren Tertullianus (160 - 220 A. D.)
- one of the „Church Fathers“ - had to remark that Zeno had taught
that the lógos runs through the material
universe „as honey runs through the honey comb“.
Roman Catholics should not forget that it was Tertullianus who had converted
the Heracleitean-Zenoean lógos into the Christian God, into the Holy
Trinity. This is another example how Gods are being produced by ruling
class man, created for exploitative purposes, and not vice versa; it follows that in Early Stoicism,
Destiny, Zeus, lógos and Mind all had the
same connotation; furthermore, the Force which moved Matter, that
is, the Anaxagorean nous, was Destiny - of which Providence
and Nature were just synonyms.
Let
us now proceed to the immediate successor of Zeno, Cleanthes of Assos (born around 330
B.C.). As had been the case with his predecessor, the doctrines of
Cleanthes had much in common with Cynicism. Thus, it is not necessary
to elaborate his teachings, which had paved the road for the consolidation
of Stoicism as an independent philosophic current. Apart from the fact
that Cleanthes had supported the idea that Aristarchus of Samos should
be prosecuted for impiety because he had expounded heliocentrism, his
Hymn to Zeus became very famous. To indicate
the germinating Christian elements in his philosophy, here we will
just cite his short prayer:
„Lead
me, O Zeus, and thou O Destiny, lead thou me on. To whatsoever task
thou sendest me. Lead thou me on. I follow fearless, or, if in mistrust
I lag and will not follow, still I must.“
(See: Russell, op. cit., p. 264.)
Into
the universal conflagration of Heracleitus and Zeno, he introduced
Zeus, and claimed that human souls live until the next ekpyrosis, when they are absorbed totally
into Zeus, into God. Even wicked souls, demons, perforce obey the Divine
Nomos, they are „like a dog tied to a cart, and
compelled to go wherever it goes“ (Cleanthes).
It
was Chrysippus of Soloi (or Tarsus), who
had lived around 280 B.C., who had given Stoicism a philosophic-scientific
basis, and had converted it into a specific ruling class ideological
tendency. Probably it is true what Diogenes Laertius had stated
concerning his prominence: „if Chrysippus had
not been born, Stoicism would not have come into existence.“
Of course, Stoicism was a historical process, and it was not dependent
only on its major philosopher. Although it seems an exaggeration, experts
claim that he had written voluminously - some 705 works. He is also supposed
to have been a master dialectician, who had used the Socratic dialectical
method extravagantly in his writings. Unfortunately, we cannot verify
the above assertions, because very little of this mammoth life work
has been preserved.
Like Zeno, but more like Cleanthes, he converted the Olympic Zeus
into the Supreme Fire, into the only immortal Being. In fact he turned
Heracleitean philosophy „upside-down“, in other words, he gave it an
idealist core. Although he agreed with Heracleitus that the „opposites are good for us“, that „good“ without
„evil“ is logically impossible, for ethical reasons, he had to rely
on Plato for scientific verification of his fundamental principles.
All this, in spite of the fact that Aristotle had already stated that
the Truth was dearer and nearer to him than Plato. Thus, through the
„idealist“ back-door, via Cleanthes, Platonism had entered Stoicism,
and it generated the specific eclectic, syncretistic and religious elements
which were characteristic of Middle and Late Stoicism. In reality, later
it became very difficult to distinguish between Platonism, Stoicism
and Scepticism.
With
Chrysippus, in spite of his quantitative contribution, we are
entering an epoch which was qualitatively barren of true, original and
new philosophic thought. Chrysippus himself was vacillating between
Heracleitus, Plato and Aristotle. However, he disagreed with Cleanthes
concerning the immortality of all human souls, he claimed that only
„wise“ souls could achieve such profanity. He virtually even adopted
some Leucippean-Democritean doctrines, and systematically wove the atomistic,
deterministic Anánke into Stoic doctrines. In other philosophic matters,
he approximated the Aristotelian „Right“, and ingeniously metamorphized
Aristotelian teleology into ruling class utility, into that which was „useful“
for humanity. In this respect, he completely contradicted Epicurean ethical,
praxico-theoretical principles. According to him, in application of the Democritean
Anánke, Man should follow blindly his inexorable Fate, without any hope whatsoever
of ever utilizing his Epicurean arbitrium liberum, of ever reaching Human Emancipation.
Scepticism
- Ideology of the Ignorant and Lazy
His
successors, the Middle Stoics, mainly Panaetius
and Posidonius, would modify his teachings,
would abandon the materialist Negation in Stoicism, that is, Heracleitean
hylozoism, and would move more closer to the real Affirmation in ancient
Graeco-Roman Philosophy, that is, towards Neo-Platonism and Plotinism,
the Aristotelian „Right“.
However, let us first elaborate an important philosophic - or rather
unphilosophic - trend within ancient Greek idealism, which had penetrated
Cynicism, Stoicism, Neo-Platonism and Neo-Aristotelianism. After the
death of Alexander the Great, a prominent anti-praxico-theoretical
tendency, Scepticism, had been engendered, which was even more lethal
than Cynicism itself. Already Horace, who hated the common folk, the
faex populi, had illustrated this carpe diem philosophy very poignantly
(See: Horace, Odes, I. 11, 8.). It seemed that after the victories
of Alexander the Great, and faced by the threat of Roman invasion,
nothing „great“ could occur anymore in Hellas, thus, ruling class men
began to enjoy the present moment, to take life easy, not to bother about
tomorrow. In other words, Man adopted a modus vivendi like „the birds
of the air“, because after all „Zeus“ would feed them, especially
in the Hereafter.
As
we have noted in a previous chapter, Scepticism had a long
history in Ancient Greece. Parmenides and Plato had doubted the cognostic
or even gnostic values of sense-perception; Protagoras and Gorgias had
utilized scepticism to develop dogmatism, subjectivism and nihilism.
However, the scientific father of dogmatic doubt, of Scepticism, was
Pyrrho of Elis (365 - 275 B. C.).
It was he, leaning very heavily on the „pre-Socratic“ so-called nihilist,
Gorgias, who had systematized the doctrine that nobody knows anything,
that nobody will ever be able to cognosce anything whatsoever, and,
even if someone by accident did cognosce reality, s(he) still would not
even know this. Scepticism within Stoicism "negated" the ancient ‘‘wise“
tradition of gnothi
seautón to which
even the God Apollo had paid reverence. It even "negated" Platonic Praxis-Theory
(as elaborated before) and reduced the Middle Academy to Doric plateasms
and Stoic platitudes. Very wisely, Pyrrho had written nothing. What we
know about his teachings, we derive from the writings of his devoted disciple,
the sillographer, Timon of Phlius (320-230 B. C.).
From
Timon, we gather that the essence of Stoic Scepticism, of Pyrrhonism,
was the achievement of individual ataraxy; thus, once more, Platonic
meditative-contemplative divine bliss was the hen kai pan of human existence. But,
Plato, as we have observed, was a wise objective idealist; and thus, even
contrary to Zeno, Pyrrho had denied the existence of objective reality.
As such, Pyrrho became more idealist than the fathers of idealism themselves.
The logical conclusion of Scepticism was, that to lead a theorico-practical
life was simply a useless and senseless goal. Hence, to a certain extent,
it approximated Cynicism and even Epicureanism.
Inspired
by Aristotelian logics, Timon had converted the basic Pyrrhonic sceptic
principles into deductive logical arguments which necessitated self-evident
general principles. Again, very wisely, he denied the possibility of
ever finding such fundamental logical principles. Of significance for
us to note is that this Timonean Sceptical attack practically had uprooted
the totality of the idealist-religious argumentations of the Aristotelian
„Right“, even those of Catholic Theosophy in the Middle Ages. The major
works of Timon are lost, only two fragments survived; and the latter
have a remarkable resemblance with the philosophic doctrines of David
Hume. After Timon’s death, the Sceptic School of Pyrrho came to an end,
but Scepticism continued to flourish in Stoicism and Neo-Platonism.
Middle Stoicism:
Panaetius and Posidonius
Panaetius (180-110 B. C.) of Rhodos
was a very close friend of the Roman Emperor Publius Cornelius
Scipio Africanus Aemilianus minor (185-129 B. C.). Also, he had
practised considerable influence on Marcus Tullius Cicero (106
- 43 B. C.). It was Panaetius who had introduced Stoicism to the urbs aeterna, to Rome. We will note how
Roman Catholicism was progressively taking shape, without any divine intervention
or revelations; the truth was simply that absolutist feudalism needed
an approriate superstucture, and Stoicism was the master-key of that
what would be sold, indoctrinated and inculcated into the minds of hundreds
of millions all over the world, including those in Latin America, until
this very day.
We
would also recall that it was during Panaetius' lifetime that the
Roman invasions of Hellas set in, and these conquests had generated
volatile class activities, but also severe philosophical struggles,
especially between materialists and idealists. Eo ipso, practically all the idealist
religious philosophical schools took up arms against materialism, against
atomism, especially against its Democritean and Epicurean expressions.
Later, "Catholic Philosophy" would attack all forms of natural science,
of human praxis. In fact, philosophic eclecticism and syncretism reflected
the combined onslaught of Neo-Platonic and Plotinian idealism against
clandestine materialism. The main representatives of Middle Stoicism, Panaetius
and Posidonius, had assimilated basic Platonic, Aristotelian philosophic
elements, and could therefore elevate Middle and Late Stoicism as an
acceptable, superstructural weltanschauung, as a respectful religious ideology,
known as Roman Catholicism, for the Roman noblesse.
As
had been the case with Pyrrho, it was the devoted pupil of Panaetius,
Mucius Scaevola, who revealed the religious
essence of the teachings of his tutor. According to Scaevola, it is
pertinent to nurture the magical, superstitious and religious beliefs
of the popular masses. Here we could see the social functions of religion
and ideology, of mind and thought control; in Europe, as from then onwards,
till today, the global, mental holocaust -- of bamboozling and manipulating
billions of serfs and wage-slaves -- was being launched. The noble masters
argued that the slaves' „natural“, instinctive, intellectual efforts should
not be blemished with complex, philosophic, scientific theories. In a
nutshell, for the ruling classes, it was and is still socially useful
when the faex populi permanently languishes in
ignorance. And, of course, ideology, lies, had to acquire a religious
camouflaging shell.
Concerning
the gods, Panaetius differentiated three distinct types of
theological doctrines:
a) the teachings of the poets (commencing with
Homer);
b) the doctrines of philosophers;
c) the tenets of State religion.
Obviously,
for him, the first category was completely absurd and very dangerous
to social morality; it contained neither veracity nor utility. Furthermore,
he argued that philosophic-physical theories did contain some grains
of truth but they were basically superfluous, because they were filled
with necessary hazards for the common plebs. However, State religious
cults and divination everybody should practise, and everyone should
recognize State religious teachings, beliefs and „truths“.
Nonetheless, contrary to both Cleanthes and Chrysippus, Panaetius denied
that the human soul would survive after earthly death. As we would note
just now, the Late Stoics corrected this religious, ideological flaw. In
this sense, Panaetius still reflected weak, hylozoistic, materialist elements;
that is, he still was approximating Epicureanism. For this very reason,
as far as Zeus and any Supreme Being were concerned, he opted for Stoic
pantheism and even for ancient polytheism.
Posidonius (135 - 51 B.C.) was a Syrian
Greek, born in Apameia. Like Aristotle, Democritus and Theophrastus,
he belonged to the few ancient Greek universal thinkers. By profession
he was a historian, natural scientist and philosopher. As was the case
of most Stoics of the Early and Middle periods, of his voluminous work,
only a few fragments survived. As historian, he continued the invaluable
research work of Polybius (201-120 B.C.), who had compiled a World History, which comprized 40 volumes.
To continue the tradition, Posidonius simply added 52 volumes more.
In
the realm of philosophy, more precisely of theosophy, across the following
millennium and a half, in the formation of the Church-State, of its absolutist
superstructure -- which was mainly composed of Roman Catholicism, also
euphemistically called Catholic Philosophy -- it was Posidonius who had
enabled mysticism and extreme mantike (divination) to enter the Stoic
teachings of his tutor, Panaetius. Because of this Stoic transformation,
it was possible to exercise remarkable influence on Cicero, and on
the Late Stoics, Seneca, Marc Aurel and Epitectus.
Also,
it is very important to note that during the Sceptical period
of Plato’s Academy, Stoicism had abandoned many basic Platonic doctrines.
It was the eclectic and syncretist philosopher Posidonius, who had saved
the philosophic essence of true Platonism, by assimilating its fundamental
theories into Middle Stoicism. Concerning the psyché or pneuma, by contradicting Panaetius,
he again postulated that after death, the human soul continues to
live. In this way, the soul, the First Death and the Second Death were
again rescued for the coming religious terrorism of the Dominican Order
and the Inquisition.
However, it is significant to notice precisely where this "soul" supposedly
would be surviving after death: just imagine, in a very natural condition
indeed, in the ancient Milesian hylozoistic aer, in the life-breath of Anaximenes
and Diogenes. Thus, somewhere in the air, singing "Love Is In The Air",
the soul continues to live until the next cosmic conflagration. Already
coining the Roman Catholic Purgatory, because he did not believe in Hell,
he had a special type of Purgatory for „wicked souls“, where „muddy“ animae were being castigated until
they were purified. And, even in this case, he still gave a natural explanation
of purgatory: because of their „muddy“ weight, preventing them to float
on high, such unfortunate human souls, like the toiling slaves and serfs,
continued to live in the lower regions of the atmosphere, near to the
earth; consequently, adopting the Socratic-Platonic principle of metempsychosis , but also considering Aristotle's
category of dynamei on, he claimed that they
had the possibility of further reincarnations.
Of course, the souls of the masters, of the nobility and clergy, the
light and virtuous souls continued to rise in the early morning fresh
air, and per
aspera ad astra, they could "help the poor", could
accelerate their own flight by means of caritas,
could assist weaker and wicked souls in the process of purification.
Also here we note the origin of Christian charity and conversion. Also,
in reality, we could detect here already the divine embryonic forms
of the Catholic saints.
As such Posidonius attempted to verify "philosophically"
the hocus-pocus of ancient divination, astrology and horoscopy. Evidently,
all these certainly suited Roman „imperialism“ and class rule, but especially
the coming Inquisition and the burning stake. Hence, by reviving old Bacchic-Pythagorean,
Socratic-Platonic idealist-religious beliefs, Posidonius had blazed the
trail for Gnosticism, Roman Catholicism, Neo-Platonism and Plotinism.
In this respect, he gave the Aristotelian „Right“ the necessary philosophic
impetus to slander all materialist doctrines and to suffocate any revolutionary-emancipatory
effort in embryo. At the same time, he deleted all the Luciferean-Cytherean
Fire from Human Praxis-Theory, and trans-formed, "in-formed" it as divine
Information, as religious Practice-Ideology.
To
achieve the above, Posidonius had to attack his very mater, the scientific-naturalist
matrix of Stoicism. He did not only deny the principles of Zenonism,
but he fiercely attacked the elements of the Aristotelian „Left“, the
theories of Theophrastus and Straton, which had lingered on in Early Stoicism.
He chose Aristarchus of Samoa, one of the most
transhistoric philosophers, as the object of his religious anger. We
would recall that centuries before, it was Aristarchus who had anticipated
the heliocentric system, the Copernican theory, and which had completely
contradicted Judean-Christian cosmological and cosmogonic views. Furthermore,
as indicated before, the Stoic, Cleanthes of Assos, had appealed to the
ruling authorities that Aristarchus should be persecuted for asebeia. A posteriori, Posidonius supported Cleanthes
in his anti-praxico-theoretical efforts, and he emphasized that such ideas
were immanently dangerous to Stoic religious doctrines, that is, to the
coming Church-State.
As
time passed by, especially in the century after the birth of Jesus
Christ, Middle Stoicism progressively degenerated, by losing all its
negating hylozoistic elements, and it was converted into reactionary
idealist-religious Roman ideology, into the arch-enemy of Epicureanism.
Now we could understand why the Stoics had attacked Epicurus so vehemently,
and why they had converted him into an „Epicurean“ hedonistic monster.
On the other hand, Middle Stoicism very accurately reflected the demoralization
and decomposition of the Graeco-Roman ruling classes of that epoch,
and also the emergence of absolutist feudalism.
Platonism
After Plato’s Death
A General Resume
Now we will continue to synthesize Post-Platonism and Post-Aristotelianism,
especially in their Plotinian and Stratonian philosophic versions.
As we have noted already, Plato headed the Akademeia until his death in 347 B.C. He was succeeded
by Speusippus, to the consternation of
Aristotle, and, in 339 B.C., Xenocrates displaced Plato’s family heir. The latter
mainly headed the ethical period of the Academy, which was terminated
around 268 B.C., under the direction of Crates, when an epistemological Scepticism was
already invading the Academy. The Middle Academy was completely overflooded
by Cynicism and Stoicism, which suffocated orthodox Platonism.
During
that period, the philosophic affairs of the Academy were mainly in
the hands of Arcesilaus (315-240 B.C.) of Pitane of Aeolia, and,
Carneades (born around 214 B. C.) of
Cyrene. In fact to demonstrate the eclectic and syncretistic influence
on the Middle Academy, it is worthy to note that Carneades was originally
a staunch Stoic.
The
Middle Academy terminated under the guidance of Clitomachus (Hasdrubal) of Carthago,
who died around 110 B.C. Then followed the Young or Late Period of the Academy,
under the supervision of Philon of Larissa (around 100 B.C.). As a result
of the renaissance of orthodox Platonism, mainly because of the Stoic
efforts of Posidonius, as elaborated earlier, dogmatic Platonism again
became the philosophic essence of the Academy. The new leader, Antiochus of Ascalon (around 60 B.C.)
vigorously participated in the eclecticism and syncretism of that
transitional epoch. In this way, a compromised Platonism entered Rome,
ready to be transformed into Catholicism, and could exercise great
influence on thinkers like Cicero and Marcus Terentius Varro (116 - 27 B.C.). And, as
mentioned already, the Academy survived the militant victories of Roman "Imperialism"
and the rise of Roman Catholicism. However, later in 529 A.D., Emperor
Justinian decided to close down this shrine of pagan worship. Only centuries
later, after the fall of Constantinople, the Academy was permitted to
see Plotinian Original Light again.
Finally,
it suffices to mention some of the eminent, religious Platonists and
Neo-Platonists of the centuries after the birth of Jesus Christ. Most
of them had participated in idealist dogmatism and they verged on Oriental
despotism. Famous eclectic commentators were: Eudorus and Areios Didymus; furthermore, the publisher
of the works of Democritus and Plato, Thrasyllus; and, others of lesser stature Porphyry, Proclus and Damascius; and, finally, Plutarch of Chaironeia. It is apposite
to mention the eminent Neo-Pythagorean Platonist, Ammonius Saccas, who was teaching philosophy
in Egypt, and who became the tutor of Plotinus, the real father of Neo-Platonism.
Plotinism
and Neo-Platonism
Plotinus (204-270 A.D.), born in
the polis Lycon, in Egypt, was the last of the great universal Greek thinkers.
That we know something about his life, we have to thank his disciple
Porphyry (Malchus), who wrote his biography. Until the age
of thirty-nine Plotinus lived in Egypt, and studied philosophy in Alexandria
under the tutelage of Ammonius Saccas. Thereafter he joined an
expedition of Emperor Gordian III against the Persians. This served
his interest in studying Oriental beliefs and religious teachings. When
his patron was assassinated in Mesopotamia, Plotinus abandoned this project
and left for Rome. He succeeded in fascinating Emperor Gallienus,
by supporting his religious, ideological projects. In this way, he won another
royal patron. He convinced the emperor about the usefulness of Plato’s
Politeia, and received permission to
establish a Platonopolis in Campania. However, he had
bad luck, because, very soon, his second benefactor was assassinated. The
Roman ruling classes had feared the political influence of a new city so
near to the urbs
aeterna
and thus the permission to erect a Platonic politeia was withdrawn.
At
the age of forty-nine, Plotinus commenced writing. Later Porphyry
arranged and edited his works in a collection, which became known
as the Enneads. In them, we could trace the
great respect which Plotinus had for Plato; realiter, he always addressed Plato
as „He“. Thus, from a vulgarized Plato, across Plotinus, towards the Late
Stoics, we could trace the birth of Roman Catholicism. This collection
was a severe philosophic attack against ancient Greek materialism, especially
against Early Stoicism and Epicureanism. He even used some doctrines
of Parmenides and Aristotle to denigrate the materialist negation in ancient
Greek-Roman philosophy.
Let
us now expound the philosophic core of Plotinism, the essence of Neo-Platonism,
by elucidating his doctrine of Divine Emanation, of Original
Light, which was fundamental for the formulation of the absolutist,
feudalist, obscurantist superstructure, for the Dark Ages, for the consolidation
of a Christian, Western, "Civilized" World Religion.
The One,
Universal Original Light
At
the base of Plotinian religious metaphysics was the Supreme One, the
Original Light. This causa formalis he sometimes called God,
at other times, simply the Good, in reminiscence of the Socratic-Platonic
summum bonum. However, in contradistinction
to Parmenides, he placed the hen (one) above the pan (all, cosmos), above all
contradictions, above all Being and Thought. De mal en pis, the hen was not unomnia (one and all), it transcended the pan, the universe, and even preceded
itself as the Divine Good or Beautiful. De facto, this One, the Original Light,
the Plotinian fiat lux, did not necessitate any derivatives
or attributes; it was emanating and radiating the purest Platonic „visions
of truth“.
This
Supra-Truth was divinely free from diabolical matter, consequently
it abhorred Luciferean-Heracleitean Fire, but, at least, it was „shining“,
hence, universally it still had a material attribute, no matter how
indeterminate. Obviously, the One, the Plotinian Holy Trinity, replaced
di majorum gentium of classical Greek mythology.
After
leaving the realm of Infinity and Eternity, the One emanated its own
image, its seeing, its vision. This „image“ or „vision“, Plotinus called
nous - but it had very little
in common with the Heracleitean and Stoic lógos, even less with the Anaxagorean quintessence,
the „thinking-substance“, Fiat lux. Nous was the lux by which the One saw or visioned itself.
Realiter, Nous was the Face of Plotinus’
God - it is the „face“ which Christian Man would „face“ at the Final
Seat of Judgement in the Hour of Wrath, on the ultimate dies irae. And, for "wicked souls",
who could not be purified, this was the end, was the "Second Death". Nevertheless,
as stated before, not even Plotinism could afford to sever completely its umbilical cord to materialism,
thus, as Zeno of Citium would say: This "shining face“ was still „quite
solid“ and material.
This
nous - the first emanation - contained
in itself the Platonic intelligible World of Ideas. Next in line,
in the dialectical process of Divine Emanation, was the universal spirit,
the Cosmic Subject, the anima mundi. Its work was to produce animae, individual souls. As nous, the hen was "shining“ into the anima mundi, and consequently into all individual souls wherever
they found themselves in the whole Cosmos. If nous did fail to reach some animae, due to diabolical material
obstacles, then such souls, which were unlit, -- not baptized or
converted -- did not contain any „vision of truth“. Obviously, for Plotinus,
the soul of Lucretius did not qualify for any „vision“, and thus it
could not herald divine „truth“.
However,
it should be noted that the anima mundi or world spirit was inferior to "Divine
Reason", to the lógos or nous. In this inferior status, the anima mundi had the capacity to create
material things, to produce Diabolical
Matter. Thus, it was not the One, not God, who had created the impure,
imperfect, devilish universe, including human beings, but it was the
work of the third-class world spirit, the third grade „Holy Spirit“.
Obviously, this was the Devil who had created "Blackamoors", "niggers",
"camel drivers", slaves and future workers.
Contrary
to the Early Stoics, who had postulated that phýsis (Nature) was directly related,
if not identical, with Supreme Nous (psyché), Plotinus relegated Nature (phýsis) to the lowest rank of his
metaphysical hierarchy. The soul, spirituality, won the First Golden
Prize. We would recall that Plato, at least, had placed to kenón, indefinite, indeterminate
Matter, at the doorstep of the process, which was leading towards
the Highest Good. And, even Hegel did not completely neglect this umbilical
cord between mater and idea. Hence, Plotinus had already anticipated
the Gnostic, Roman Catholic views that matter and materialism, that earthly
things were diabolical and evil. Thales’ hydor, Anaximenes’ aer Anaximander’s apeiron, Parmenides’ s sphairos, Democritus’ atomos and even Aristole’s dynamei on, all were transformed into
the Devil Incarnate, into Satan, into an Anti-God, who was spurting
Promethean Heracleitean pyr, materialist Hell Fire -- as something
to be exorcised, to be burned on the stake. This is an excellent way to
mask ruling class terrorism and brutality, to veil real wickedness, evil
and terror.
However,
we should not forget that Plotinism, the essence of Neo-Platonism,
as Affirmation within ancient Graeco-Roman, religious, idealist, metaphysical
Ideology, was itself a historical, natural-social process. In other words,
it also contained its own dialogical Affirmation and Negation, its own
antagonistic, dialectical Unity-And-Contradiction-Of-Opposites. Hence, even
Plotinus, like Hegel later, had to admit that Luciferean Matter, that diabolical
Substance, gave the Platonic ideas a spiritual, theological character.
Plotinus even went so far as to mention an „intelligible matter“, a
kind of Substance-Satan, which cannot change into anything, that is, a
Parmenidean static unomnia. It was this Luciferean concept
of Matter which would continue to smoulder in Jewish-Arab, African materialist
philosophy, but also in the Praxis-Theory of the heretic and rebelling
„saints“ and of Roman Catholicism, in the „communist“ cloisters and the
revolutionary peasant movements of the Middle Ages. In Renaissance philosophy,
in the materialism of Marsilio Ficino (1433 - 1499 A.D.), the One,
the Original Light, would again acquire materialist photoactive and photokinetic
dimensions.
Concerning
Human Praxis-Theory, evidently, Plotinus had reduced social optatives
and activities to an earthly exodus, to a safari towards the Divine
One, to a „Return to God“, which can still be read today inscribed on
thousands of walls throughout the world, even high up in The Andes, near
to the majestic Pico Bolivar. This „Vuèlvanse a Dios“ completely contradicted
the Cynic-Stoic „Return to Nature“, and even the Rousseauian „noble savage"
which has ushered in modern Mammon, Capitalism. Especially today, globally,
without knowing it, with the Plotinian-Neo-Platonian Original
Light, many contemporary
Cynic-Stoic youths are rebelling against modern, terrorist versions of
this Inquisitory-McCarthian, Bacchic-Pythagorean unio mystica.
Aristotelianism
after Aristotle’s Death
Theophrastus of Erebos (or Lesbos) - who
had been living between 370 and 287 B.C. -, the co-founder of the
Lyceum or Peripatetic School, and close friend of Aristotle, was the
main exponent of Aristotelianism in the 3rd Century B.C. - especially
of the Aristotelian „Left“. Like his famous teacher, Aristotle, he
was one of the great ancient Greek pansophists. He specialized in natural
sciences, especially in botany, zoology and mineralogy. His book, Characters, was well-read in Antiquity,
and even Renaissance writers were still fascinated by his eloquent style
and vivid sketches of various types of human beings. His famous philosophic
work, physikon doxai, Opinions of the Physicists,
is extant, and it was reconstructed by Hermann Diels. Apart from the
above, fragments of his Metaphysics and his work on Perception are also preserved. (See:
G. M. Stratton, Theophrastus and the Greek Physiological Psychology
Before Aristotle, New York, 1917.)
In
287 B. C., Theophrastus was succeeded by Straton of Lampsacus (whose nickname
was the „Physicist“), and he led the Lyceum until 269 B.C. Both immediate successors
of Aristotle had concentrated on enriching his physics and metaphysics,
in other words, on continuing the materialist tradition of the Aristotelian
„Left“. Their most noted followers, inter alia, were: Dicaiarchus of Messene, Aristoxenus of Tarent and Eudemos of Rhodos. Dicaiarchus was
famous as a polyhistorian, and as the author of a Greek cultural history;
Aristoxenus developed a music theory; and Eudemos concentrated on
historic, literary and natural scientific studies.
In
the 1st Century A.D., after the rediscovery of the Aristotelian library,
a number of Peripatetic commentators and doxographers came into existence.
Among them were: Hermippus, Sotion, Satyrus, Heracleid, Lembos, Alexander
of Aphrodisias and Andronikus. In the following two centuries, Stoicism
and Epicureanism practically neutralized and veiled the intellectual
efforts of the Lyceum, but also of the Academy. Later, for many centuries
to come, Catholic Theology and Theosophy would sublimate Aristotelianism
and mercilessly plunder Platonism; Thomism just reversed this process,
but it plundered the Aristotelian „Right“.
The Formative
Years of the Aristotelian „Left“: Theophrastus - Straton
As
we would recall, Aristotle had defined Substance as hýle, as dynamei on, as In-Possibility-Being,
as Indefinite, Indeterminate Matter. We would also remember the hylozoistic,
apeironic tradition of his determination of Matter. Furthermore, we
have stated that hýle, passively took on morphé (form); ex parte, Form, the Entelechy, the
causa formalis, was transcendental, it was
separated from the Cosmos, it was an active, pure, Thinking-God.
However,
strange enough, morphé as causa movens, as original, principal moving force,
was substance-immanent, was the opposite of the Anaxagorean nous. Hence, Form (morphe) as causa formalis was transcendent as causa movens, it was immanent. Here we note what a master
dialectician of content Aristotle had been. Obviously, this
was a dialectical contradiction that immediately concerned Theophrastus
and Straton.
Theophrastus
took note of this obvious contradiction in Aristotelian metaphysics,
but he did not develop his own philosophic views concerning this matter.
His successor, Straton, was preoccupied with this dualism within
the doctrine of forms. What taxed the philosophic faculties of Theophrastus
was the relation between this actus purus, between divine nous, and, the inferior
soul activities. Within the Aristotelian
doctrine of the anima (soul) the dilemma was that morphé was immanently inborn as nous within the animal soul, but,
at the same time, as a result of its divine purity, it was essentially
different from the animal soul; and, furthermore, concerning
individual souls, nous originally had entered from the
"outside". It was in this respect that Theophrastus departed from Aristotle
and ushered in the Aristotelian „Ieft“, when he proceeded to weaken
the theism in nous,
and to strengthen the dialectical relation between morphé and hýle.
It
was he who had denied Nous any form of Transcendence, and had thus
subsumed it as self-developing, auto-dynamic activity under the general
concept of kinesis, of universal evolution-involution
of Cosmic Being-Becoming and Becoming-Being. Concerning Praxis-Theory,
it was Theophrastus who again had given human intellectual and physical
activities a historico-social, material substratum. Not only did Motion
become a universal function, also Human Motion became an intrinsic process
of this material totality.
As
such, nous became causa materialis and its difference to the
anima was just a matter of degree.
In a Hegelian sense, it was just a more-developed whole, while the
anima was simply a less-developed
one. The third head of the Lyceum, Straton, more energetically
gave Aristotelianism a „left“ turn. He eradicated the limitations between
lower intellectual activities of the anima and the higher divine mental activities
of nous. Applying Aristotelian dialectics
he proclaimed that both activities form an indivisible intellectual
unity. This simply meant that no Thinking or Thought could exist without
anschauung (perception and cognition),
and, logically, no weltanschauung (cosmovision, world outlook) without a
welt (world, cosmos, universe).
Anschauung as Platonic contemplatio of spiritual things now progressively
became converted into theoria which cognosce and comprehend true, real,
concrete existing things. Real Human Being’s look began to turn away
from gazing at the eternal Divine, his vision of truth was not focused
on universally-immanent processes. And, similarly, due to the dialectics
between Form and Substance, Human Praxis became an intrinsic process
of universal-historic Becoming- Being. As mentioned before, even Straton
could not transcend the universal weltanschauung,
also for him a Diverse, Triverse or Polyverses did not exist.
It
follows that for Straton there could not exist conceptualisation,
meditation and contemplation without active praxical collaboration
of Thinking and Thought. Agreeing with the Early Stoics, he called this
universal, praxico-theoretical process to hegemonikón, but he transferred it from the psychological
to the metaphysical sphere. Moreover, also the anima mundi could not be separated from
the mundus, consequently, neither the
phýsis nor the psyché and also not their relations
could be thought transcendentally. In this way, Stratonism negated
the monotheism of the psyché, pneuma or the lógos, negated the divine character of the
Aristotelian morphé, and, thus, he gave Aristotelianism
a more definite naturalistic-pantheistic dimension. This also meant that
he denied the existence of either a pure morphé or a pure hýle which implies that he also denied the
existence of pure
praxis and pure theoria .
By
disqualifying the chorismos (division, separation) between nous and the arché, between the Principle of
the Principle and the Principle itself, he resurrected an important
Democritean principle: World-Immanent Anánke, which denies a
divine causa efficiens. (Also see: Windelband - Heimsoeth,
op. cit., pp. 152 - 153; and, Ernst Bloch, Avicenna…, op. cit.,
pp. 31 - 32.)
However, in contradistinction to Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus and
Lucretius, to Atomism, Straton did not see the universal causa essendi in atomos and to kenón, also not in their quantitative
determinations, but exclusively in the archaic poiotetes (qualities) and dynameis (forces) of the cremata and pragmata (things) themselves. If we
take into consideration the modifications of Epicurus to Atomism,
expounded in a previous chapter, -- that is, his arbitrium liberum -- we could state mutatis mutandis that the Stratonian causa essendi, as a contradiction, was indecisively
oscillating between Aristotelian teleology and Leucippean-Democritean hylozoistic,
mechanical determinism.
Furthermore, in a metonymical sense, Stratonism was reflecting the contradiction
between the two main philosophical schools of that epoch: Epicureanism and
Early Stoicism. And, finally, to complete the totality of philosophical
thought in that age, it should be stressed that both schools -- Early Stoicism
and Epicureanism -- in a praxico-theoretical sense, had gone much farther
than Stratonism, at least, as far as Zeno’s humanism and Epicures’ freedom
of choice were concerned.
Future
Dynámei On: In Spe
The
Aristotelian commentator, Alexander of Aphrodisias, would continue
this „left“ dynamei on philosophic tradition; Avicenna would
„naturalize“ it further; Avicebron would change the Aristotelian hýle into materia universalis; and Averroës would „baptize“
it as natura
naturans. The Aristotelian
morphé of dynamei on, Avicenna had determined
as the „Fiery Truth of Matter“, that is, in the tradition of the Promethean-Luciferean,
Heracleitean-Zenonean hylozoistic lógos. Later, Ernst Bloch would even pose the
answering question of a supernatura naturans and a supernatura naturata.
However, to return to the transitional epoch between slavocracy
and feudalism, in the ancient Graeco-Roman world, as we have noted in
the last book, after the birth of Jesus Christ, in tendency hylozoistic, pantheistic,
panpsychic and panvitalistic materialism was cooling down, but, in
latency, it was never totally eclipsed
by religious Stoicism and Roman Catholicism. Even in its strongest
denial as Nous or Logos, in Neo-Platonic Plotinism, its archaic original
fiery explosion, its fiat lux, was still „shining“ diabolically; this
Luciferean brilliance was present in the inquisitorial fires of the burning
stakes and the materialist flambeau would again flare up in the Renaissance
philosophy of Marsilio Ficino.
Late
Stoicism: Religious Ideology of Roman Emperors, Ministers and Slaves
We
will conclude this chapter, this Book, by summarizing the religious,
philosophic essence of Late Stoicism, as expressed by its three
major exponents: Seneca (a minister),
Epictetus (a slave) and Marc Aurel (an emperor). In any case, it is very
arduous to differentiate between the eclectic philosophic, syncretistic
religious currents of the centuries immediately after the birth of Jesus
Christ. The ideas and conceptions of Plotinists, Neo-Platonists, Neo-Pythagoreans,
religious Platonists, eclectic commentators, Jewish theologians and
Christian apologetics are all intertwined, and they seriously challenge
any scientific classification and categorization - a real fertile soil
for dialecticians, to study universal contradictions, transitions of epochs,
social revolutions.
Seneca’s
example of a virtuous life
Lucius
Annaeus Seneca (3/4 B.C.-65 A.D.), a real contemporary
of Jesus Christ, who never mentioned the Name of the legendary Lord, received
the same name as his father (born around 54 B. C., in Cordova, Spain),
was a Spaniard, but he was cultivated in Rome. He chose a political
career, and as a statesman, he had good and bad luck with powerful women;
very soon he had incurred the malevolence of the Empress Messalina. As
a result of this misfortune, he was banished to Corsica in 41 A.D. However,
another woman, Agripinna, the second wife of the Emperor Claudius, was
impressed by him, and she recalled him from exile in 48 A.D.
Like
Aristotle, Seneca was appointed as tutor of a future ruler, of Agripinna’s
son, Emperor Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus Caesar.
Now,
concerning a virtuous modus vivendi, Seneca was an example par excellence of religious, Stoic pretensions.
Although he preached asceticism, and verbally despised riches, yet
he personally amassed a Croesusian fortune: in those days, it was estimated
at three hundred million sesterces. According to Bertrand Russell,
this amounted to about three million pounds (according to valuation
in 1945). In fact, he was an ancient Roman „capitalist“, an expert money-lender,
with an aptitude for super-interest rates. The heroic forerunner of the
contemporary Queen Mother, the then "British" Queen Boadicea had to organize
a huge rebellion against Seneca’s primitive, accumulative capitalism, against
the Stoic religious apostle of ascetism and austerity, against one of the
ideological "founding fathers" of Catholicism. Sentenced to death, before
committing suicide, he had the odessity to write the following in his family
will: „Never mind, I leave you what is of far more
value than earthly riches, the example of a virtuous life“. (See:
Russell, p. 267.) Those that most babble to the rabble about a stoic, good,
virtuous, Christian life and afterlife are generally those, here and now,
who at the cost of the poor are enjoying a rich, extravagant, opulent life
on earth.
The
bitter irony was that Seneca’s „evil deeds“ were „interred with his
bones“; the Christian „Fathers“ adopted him as a „Christian“, and Saint
Jerome even accepted as genuine a supposed religious correspondence
between him and St. Paul. It is simply incredible of what all "founding
fathers" are capable of.
Hence,
the founder of Roman Stoicism, or of Late or Young Stoicism, was Seneca,
the richest man in Rome. This ancient Roman Rasputin not only enjoyed
the favour of Roman empresses, but he participated in various royal conspiracies,
and allowed himself to be overflooded by „gifts“, money, houses, gardens
and palaces, while he was preaching about the miserable Lazarus, about
a „virtuous life“. In fact, this Senecan religious tradition would continue
right up to modern times, no wonder that the „sigh of the oppressed creature“,
the „heart of a heartless world“ eventually became more and more transformed
into "the wretched of the earth", into the "miserables", and now into
the "terrorists".
While
enjoying the „flesh-pots“ of the Roman Empire, Seneca was advocating
Fatalism and Mysticism, spiced with Stoic pantheism and Platonic immortality
of the soul. The faex populi of Rome were taught to adore the goddess
Fatum, and that they, by Nature, could not change anything, least of
all their misfortune: volentem fate ducunt, nolentem trahunt. Thus, a reactionary, passive,
Gandhistic spirit was hammered into the slaves, plebs and „drones“
of the urbs
aeterna. Late
Stoicism completely severed all relations between Human Praxis and
Theory, and across the next millennium and a half, in Roman Catholicism,
Creation, Ora et Labora, Belief, Redemption and Revelation became
the new watch-words, the true absolutist, feudalist catch-words; the slaves,
the serfs, the toiling masses had no power whatsoever to interfere in
divine and „natural“ processes; they could not change or improve anything
within socio-political life. The historical product of such a world outlook
was obvious: the reign of terror of Nero, Caligula and Seneca, and later
of the Dominican Order.
Epitectus:
I am a citizen of the Universe
Epitectus (approx. 60 A.D.-140 A.D.)
was a Greek, born in Hierapolis, Phyrgia. Originally, he was a slave
of Epaphroditus, then he was freed, and became a teacher of philosophy.
He settled in poor conditions in Nicopolis and Rome. Because of cruel
treatment during his slave days, it is said that he was lame. Although
Epictetus never wrote anything, his devoted pupil, the historian Flavius
Arrian, had made stenographic reports of his speeches and teachings.
In
90 A.D., the Emperor Domitian began a campaign against philosophers
and intellectuals, and Epitectus was forced to retire to Nicopolis
in Epirus. There he spent the rest of his life. Thanks to his disciple,
Flavius Arrian, who had compiled „Treatises of
Epitectus“, „Discussions of Epitectus“
and „Manual of Morals“, we know something
about his basic philosophic teachings.
Let
us commence to cite Epitectus on universal fraternity: „I must die. But must I die groaning? I must be imprisoned.
But must I whine as well? I must suffer exile. Can anyone of them hinder
me from going with a smile, and a good courage, and at peace?... 'Will
behead you’. Why? When did I ever tell you that I was the only man in
the world that could not be beheaded? These are the thoughts that those
who pursue philosophy should ponder; these are the lessons they should
write down day by day, in these they should exercise themselves.“(See:
Russell, p. 270; quoted from W. J. Oates, The Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers,
pp. 225 - 226.)
According
to him, reminding us of Plato's soma sema,
on earth we are prisoners in a corporeal human body. Zeus did not
have the capacity to free the body, but he had given us a small part
of his divinity. Hence, we are not Greeks, Athenians or Romans, we are
masters and servants of the Cosmos. In his own words: „I am a citizen of the Universe“. However, we are also „citizens“ of Zeus, of God:
"‘We must submit to God (Zeus) as a good
citizen submits to the law. The soldier swears to respect no man above
Caesar (Nero), but we do respect ourselves first of all.’“ (ibid.)
Of course, in a strict Christian sense, we should „love“ our enemies,
should love our neighbour as ourselves. We have to play our specific roles
on earth, strictly according to Providence, according to the Will of
Zeus, of Jupiter, of God.
In
a Socratic-Platonic spirit, he declared arete as the Highest Good, and only through
it "Man" could achieve hedone. Human pleasure could not be increased
or diminished by external things, whether they were good or bad, it was
essentially a subjective, individual process. Although „Athens is beautiful“, in reality, „happiness is far more beautiful“, and happiness
is achieved through total liberation from „passion
and disturbance“; and, to achieve an ataraxic state, in which our
„affairs depend on no one,“ is the greatest
virtue. Definitely, Epitectus committed class suicide, he became the spokesman
for ruling class absolutism and feudalism.
Hence,
influenced by Cynicism, Scepticism and Middle Stoicism, Epitectus
was preaching a religious fatalism. In this way, he complemented the
reactionary religious philosophy of Seneca, and, as we will see later,
in spite of the class difference he even agreed with the Emperor Marc
Aurel. But, Epitectus did not completely forget his „lameness“ and his
sufferings under Roman chattel slavery, hence, even in his religious
Stoic philosophy, there were negative, rebellious, materialist traits. Echoes
of the Spartacist revolutionary tradition, now and then still reverberated
in his fatalism.
Ethically he condemned slavery and exploitation, and he tried to appeal
to the „conscience“ of the slave-master. He reminded him of the social
relation between slave and slave-master, that the starving, toiling
slaves were responsible for his social and economic prosperity. In fact,
he elevated the concept „Labour“ to an honourable moral category. And,
against the banausian attitude of Plato and Aristotle, he emphasized
that labour merits human worth and dignity. But, of course, labour should
not be placed in the service of personal well-being, but it should be
the motor of social welfare. In this case, it should be placed in the
service of the megalomania and extravagance of the Emperor Nero. Surely,
Epitectus could not see, that Labour itself was the root of all evil.
However,
still in a true Democritean-Epicurean sense, he denied the Socratic-Platonic
doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Thus, only on earth, Man could
achieve real true happiness - in spite of the fact that he possessed
a small part of Zeus’ divinity. Consequently, the philosophy of Epitectus
was essentially contradictory, on the one hand he criticized slave-owning
society, but on the other hand, he appealed for social reconciliation within
the class struggle, and thus paved the road towards feudalism and capitalism.
Marc
Aurel: Self-Meditation and Fatalistic Pessimism
Seneca
and Epitectus were so successful that they even converted a Roman
Emperor into a Late Stoic philosopher. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (120-180 A.D.) was the adopted
son of Emperor Antoninus Pius, whom he succeeded in 161 A.D. As „Sophos“
on the Roman throne, he tried to assimilate „philia“ and "eros“ for
paideia, episteme and gnosis, and this he accomplished
with Stoic discipline and ancient Roman simplicity. In fact, Plato
would have been proud of this philosopher-king. And, all these virtuous
things he tried to realize in the face of chronic calamities - wars,
pestilences and earthquakes. In addition, he had great family problems:
his wife, Faustina, was accused of gross immorality, and his son, Commodus,
who later succeeded him, suffered from extravagant vicious propensities.
He
was so introspective that his famous work, Meditations, became a real gnothi seauton, a discourse addressed to
himself. It reflected an absolute pessimism, the decomposition of ancient
slave-owning society. Linking up with Seneca and Epitectus, he preached
indifference to social affairs, a retrogression to one’s own subjectivity,
to one’s inner spiritual experience. Externally, praxically, nothing
could be done - slave-owning society was just eternal and immutable.
The
summum bonum was a virtuous life tuned
to the rhythm and harmony of the Bacchic-Pythagorean Universe. And, Cosmic
harmony was identical with Roman „law and order“, with obedience to the
Will of Zeus. God had presented man with a Socratic demon, a Christian guardian
angel, who guided man along the virtuous paths of earthly existence. His
maxim: „Love mankind, Follow God“, and: remember,
„Law rules all“. In 180 A.D., this pathetic
Roman Emperor died in Vienna or in Sirmium, after he had succeeded to achieve
the deification of his beloved Faustina, and that his son could succeed him
after his death; the latter turned out to be one of the worst Roman Caesars.
In
conclusion, we can say that Late Stoicism had attempted to neutralize
the violent social conflicts and to rationalize ruling class exploitation
and oppression. It expounded the reactionary ideology of an existing
„fraternity“ between men, independent of their class affiliation. It
was for this reason why Late Stoicism had advanced to a Roman State
philosophy, and logically it produced its negation, Epicureanism.
With
Late Stoicism, we have reached the end of Roman Stoic Philosophy.
In conclusion, we should just make some remarks about the last Roman
philosopher, Boethius (480 - 524 A.D.), an eminent
idealist and eclectic in the tradition of the Aristotelian „Right“.
Although he had translated Aristotle, Euclid, Archimedes, Ptolemy and
other ancient Greek thinkers, from Greek into Latin, essentially, he
was a Neo-Platonist, with an affinity to Stoic doctrines. His De consolatione philosophiae
became a classic
in the Middle Ages, but, more significant were his translations and
commentaries of the Aristotelian categories. As Christian and accused of „high
treason“, he was executed in 524 A.D.
Eclipse
of Materialism: veritas odium parit
Truth
begets Hatred. Epicurean materialist Truth generated Stoic Hatred.
In Graeco-Roman Philosophy, the essential contradiction became the Negation
„Epicureanism“ contra the Affirmation „Stoicism“. And, Stoicism
had utilized any means whatsoever to eradicate Atomism. Cynicism, Scepticism,
Nihilism, Agnosticism, Gnosticism, Neo-Platonism, Neo-Pythagoreanism
and Plotinism, all were organized eclectically-syncretistically and religiously
to destroy the materialist demon of revolutionary-emancipatory Praxis-Theory
against tyranny, absolutism, catholicism and despotism.
What
the protagonists of the Aristotelian „Right“ did not realize was that
to eradicate one’s own Negation, was to negate one’s own historical
process. And, for this reason, although surreptitiously and in a clandestine
fashion, ancient materialism continued to suvive in delitescence and
deliquescence. In fact, where the oppressed continued to sigh and to
groan, materialism continued to flourish and, if necessary, in religion,
in Christianity, in Catholic Theology itself, heated up by the eviternal
flames of the Inquisitorial fires. Veritas not only begets Hatis (Hate), but
also Elpis (Hope), and Hope became the
intra-patrian, energetic dynamo of Revolutionary Fire. A total eclipse
of the Material Sun, of Original Light befell Europe, and spread towards
the west and north; meanwhile, towards the south and east, towards Northern
Africa and the Arab World, ex oriente lux was
shining bright rain-bow colours of natura naturata
and natura naturans.
FORWARD