Philosophy of the Hellenistic era. Philosophy of late Hellenism: Epicureanism, Stoicism, Neoplatonism

At the end of the 4th and beginning of the 3rd century. BC Several philosophical schools operate simultaneously in Greece. The heir to the philosophical and scientific thought of Aristotle is the Peripatetic school. In the first time after the death of Aristotle, its representatives continued natural science research and were engaged in the interpretation of his philosophical and logical views. The most prominent of them during this period were Theophrastus (approx. 370-281 BC) and Eudemus from Rhodes. The teachings of Theophrastus are in many ways similar to the teachings of Aristotle. In them he considered the problems of both “first philosophy” and logic, where, obviously, he directly referred to Aristotle. One can agree with Hegel’s assessment of Theophrastus, which in principle characterizes other representatives of the Peripatetic school: “... although he was famous, he can still be revered only as a commentator on Aristotle. Aristotle represents just such a rich treasury of philosophical concepts that one can find in it a lot of material for further processing...”

Eudemus from Rhodes is the author of a number of works on the history of individual sciences and popularizes the teachings of Aristotle. In the field of ethics, however, he strengthens the idealistic tendency, asserts the thesis that the highest good lies in spiritual contemplation, i.e. in contemplation of the deity. In contrast to Eudemus, two other students of Aristotle, Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus, emphasize and develop materialistic tendencies in Aristotle’s ethical teachings.

After the death of Theophrastus, the Peripatetic school was led by Strato of Lampsacus. His interests were focused on the field of nature, although among the titles of works cited by Diogenes Laertius one can find works on both logic and problems of ethics. According to the historian of philosophy V.F. Asmus, Strato was critical of some idealistic elements of Aristotle's teachings. He rejected those thoughts of Aristotle that led to dualism.

Along with the Peripatetic school, the Platonic Academy continued its activities in Athens. Immediately after the death of Plato, Speusippus (409-339 BC) became the head of the Academy, who basically preserved in it the spirit of Plato and his ideas last period creativity. After him, the leadership of the Academy was carried out by one of the most original (excluding Aristotle) ​​students of Plato - Xenocrates of Chalcedon (396-314 BC). However, he, in essence, does not go beyond the ideas of Plato. Xenocrates divided philosophy into dialectics, physics (philosophy of nature) and ethics (in Plato this division is only indicated). He also distinguishes three types of cognition: thinking, sensation and representation.

A completely different way of thinking in Plato’s Academy is found in Heraclides of Pontus and Eudoxus of Cnidus. They deviate so much from the original Platonic doctrine of ideas that it is only with difficulty that they can be called followers of Plato. Heraclides, for example, believed that the basis of all things are the smallest, further indivisible bodies. He makes certain contributions to the field of astronomy.

Subsequently, the ethical teaching was developed by his student Krantor of Sol, who opposed the views of the Cynics and defended the thesis of moderation of passions. Passions themselves are a product of nature; they should not be killed, but only moderated. During the scholarchate of Arcesilaus (318-214 BC), the influence of skepticism began to increase in the Academy. Arcesilaus very sharply opposes the teaching of the Stoics about cataleptic ideas. He rejected the existence of objective criteria of truth and argued that a wise person must “stick to reason.”

Carneades (c. 214 - 129 BC), the creator of a certain version of the theory of probability (probabilism), also took a skeptical position. He rejects the objective criterion of truth, whether at the level of sensory knowledge or thinking. At the same time, he refers to the fact that at the level of sensory cognition there are phenomena known as deception of the senses, and at the level of thinking - logical aporias.

In the 1st century BC. academic philosophy is gradually declining.

Epicureanism

Epicureanism (Epicurus, Lucretius, Horace) proceeds from the fact that any sensation or feeling must be preceded by “tangibility” as a certain primary property, a certain axiom. Atoms became mental constructs, analogues of the tangibility of existence, which could change their directions, and the source of their movement was in themselves. The gods had the same tangibility, who therefore could not depend on anything: “neither they influence the world, nor the world can influence them.”

The true source of knowledge, which never deceives us, is feelings. Objectively existing things “exude” streams of atoms; each of these streams internally contains an image of a thing, which is imprinted on the soul. The result of this influence is sensations that are true if they correspond to things, and false if they are capable of conveying an illusory appearance of correspondence to things. Sensations are the basis for the formation of ideas that are stored in memory. Their totality can be called past experience. The names of human language record ideas. The meaning of names are representations correlated through an image (flow of atoms) with a thing.

In addition to the usual five senses, Epicurus distinguishes pleasure and suffering, which are an evaluative complex that allows us to distinguish not only truth and falsehood, but also good and evil. From here follows the famous principle of freedom of Epicureanism, which in fact acts not just as some internal active position, but as an expression of the very structure of the world. This was not the subjective will of man, but an objective state of affairs. That which promotes pleasure is good, and that which brings pain is evil.

Stoicism

Stoicism (3rd century BC - 3rd century AD) differed significantly from Epicureanism in many respects. The Stoics did not accept the mechanistic atomism of the Epicureans, according to which man was the same combination of atoms as a chicken and a worm. In their opinion, atomism fundamentally could not explain the moral and intellectual essence of man. The Stoics also did not accept the Epicurean ethics of pleasure for the sake of pleasure, contrasting it with a calm perception of the world as it is.

In early Stoicism, great importance is attached to the problem of the semantic significance of a word. The meaning of the word is original. This is a special state (lekton), inherent only in a word, a kind of understanding of what exists in the form of a special organism. Only the participation of the mind transforms the sound of the voice into a meaningful language. Accordingly, the basis of knowledge is the perception obtained from the influence of an object on the senses, which changes the state of our material soul (Chrysippus) or is even “pressed” into it like wax (Zeno). The resulting imprint-impression forms the basis of the idea and comes into contact with the ideas of other people. Ideas will be true if they are the same for many people; the joint experience of ideas is a criterion for their truth. That is, concepts arise as a commonality of different perceptions, as a kind of anticipation of the internal logos. Recognition of a representation (and therefore a concept) as true is associated with the evidence of its correspondence to reality and, at the same time, with the similarity of methods for establishing such a correspondence among all people.

The doctrine of nature of the Stoics recognizes as the only being worthy of philosophical study only that which acts or suffers, that is, the body. There are two closely related foundations of being. The first is passive, matter corresponds to it, the second is active, this is a form understood by the Stoics as logos. Logos is the world mind, which spiritualizes matter, devoid of properties, and thereby causes its systematic development. It is inextricably linked with matter and permeates it. That is why everything in the world happens as intended by the divine logos. There is no chance in the world, everything happens with necessity. And yet the Stoics believe that human freedom is possible. But it is not possible for everyone, but only for those who penetrate their thoughts into the divine plan.

Middle Stoicism is represented by such figures as Panetius (180 - 110 BC) and Posidonius (135 - 51 BC), who “transfer” Stoic thinking to Roman soil, softening its original ethnic rigidity.

Problems of theology are actively being developed here. God is interpreted as the Logos, who is the root cause of everything, carrying within himself the rational germs of all things. From the rationality of logos follows the purposeful course of things and events. In middle Stoicism, Plato’s thought about the world of ideas is further developed, and Cosmos is no longer interpreted only as something material, but is understood as a reflection of the world of ideas (Posidonius). Accordingly, the Cosmos turns from a material organism into a material-semantic organism, in which extra-rational factors, for example, fate, are of great importance.

Late Stoicism is associated with the names of Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD), Epictetus (50 - 138 AD), and Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 AD). At the center of philosophical research here are moral issues and the problem of human life orientation. The idea of ​​personality changes. Before this, man was viewed as the highest product of nature. The cruel era of this period, associated, in particular, with the intensification of persecution of emerging Christianity, continues the interpretation of man as an insignificant and at the same time helpless being. But still, many ideas of late Stoicism were later accepted by Christian thinkers and even writers of the Renaissance.

The Stoics have a peculiar attitude towards philosophy. Philosophy is understood as a kind of path to the formation of a character resistant to the adversities of life, a path that will lead to the deliverance of the soul from the mortal, insignificant, sinful body and will bring true freedom human soul. The whole philosophy of the Stoics comes down to applied (or practical) philosophy; metaphysics, theory of knowledge, logic are of little concern to them. Knowledge of nature is necessary to fulfill the basic ethnic goal: to live in harmony with nature.

The last Roman Stoic, Marcus Aurelius, paints a gloomy picture of the state of Roman society, which is characterized by a lack of ideals, which gives rise to pessimism and apathy in people. At the same time, in his philosophical works and in his practical activities as an emperor, he tries to overcome the negative consequences that this situation in society may entail. Therefore, he applies the rigidity and severity of the Stoic position primarily to himself, preaching the future Christian principle of “replying evil with good” or, in a softer version, at least not being like the actions of evil people in your actions.

The period of the emperorship of Marcus Aurelius is perhaps the only one in the history of human culture when philosophers became rulers of society. He tried to implement Plato's ideas by making philosophers a free, privileged class, surrounding himself with them. Marcus Aurelius made an attempt to build the management of society on the principles of rationality. It is this period that is considered to be the end of the formation of the famous Roman law.

Skepticism

Skepticism is the third direction of early Hellenism, the largest representatives of which were Pyrrho of Elis (365 - 275 BC) and Sextus Empiricus (200 - 250 AD).

Representatives of this direction consistently carry out general principle early Hellenism, namely the principle of relativity of everything around us, our thoughts and our actions. It becomes a kind of general method for studying any phenomena and human actions. Accordingly, this leads to a negative cognitive program, and the basis of the philosophical approach is the position that it is necessary not to cognize, but simply to live, without expressing any judgments that claim to be true and maintaining inner peace. The consequence of this attitude was the denial of the intrinsic value of almost the entire previous history of philosophical thought. However, there was also skepticism positive value due to the fact that he acutely posed the problem of knowledge and truth, he drew attention to the possibility of the simultaneous existence of different opinions, speaking out against dogmatism and the absolutization of any one truth.

Skepticism as a philosophical trend became a symptom of the fading of the creative thought of Greek thinkers.

Federal Agency for Railway Transport

Siberian state university communication lines

Department of Philosophy

ABSTRACT

On topic:

“Philosophy of the Hellenistic era: skepticism, cynicism, stoicism, epicureanism.”

Head Developed

Professor Student gr. U-211

Bystrova A.N. Bashlykov S.V.

Novosibirsk 2011

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….3

Philosophy of the Hellenistic era:………………………………………………………5

Stoicism……………………………………………………………..5

Epicureanism……………………………………………………...7

Skepticism………………………………………………………...9

Cynicism…………………………………………………………….10

Conclusion…………………………………………………………….14

References………………………………………………………16

INTRODUCTION

Hellenistic culture is usually called a new stage in the development of material and spiritual culture, forms political organization and social life of the peoples of the Mediterranean, Western Asia and adjacent areas.

The Hellenistic era began with the campaigns of Alexander the Great (son of Philip II ) to the east (334-335 BC) and his conquest of the territory of the former Persian state (including Egypt, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor and Central Asia).

Alexander sought to create a worldwide monarchy that included Greece, Macedonia and Persia. Obviously, his plans included the conquest of India and Italy, but his premature death (323 BC) prevented their implementation.

There is no doubt that the process of interaction between the Hellenic and Central Asian peoples took place in the previous period, but the Greco-Macedonian conquest gave it scope and intensity. New forms of culture, political and socio-economic relations that arose during the Hellenistic period were the product of a synthesis in which local, mainly eastern, and Greek elements played one or another role depending on specific historical conditions. The greater or lesser importance of local elements left an imprint on the socio-economic and political structure, forms of social struggle, the nature of cultural development and largely determined the further historical destinies of individual regions of the Hellenistic world.

The history of Hellenism is clearly divided into three periods: the emergence of Hellenistic states (end IV beginning III V. BC BC), the formation of the socio-economic and political structure and the flourishing of these states ( III beginning II V. BC BC) and a period of economic decline, growing social contradictions and subordination to the power of Rome (mid II end I V. BC e.). Indeed, from the end IV V. BC e. you can trace the formation of the Hellenistic civilization, on III V. and the first half II V. BC e. is the period of its heyday. But the decline of the Hellenistic powers and the expansion of Roman rule in the Mediterranean, and in the Front and Central Asia The possessions of the emerging local states did not mean its death. As a constituent element, it participated in the formation of the Parthian and Greco-Bactrian civilizations, and after Rome subjugated the entire Eastern Mediterranean, a complex fusion of Greco-Roman civilization arose on its basis.

The schools of Plato and Aristotle, which reflected the worldview of the civil collective of the classical city-state, are losing their former role. At the same time, the influence of existing IV V. BC e. currents of cynics and skeptics generated by the crisis of polis ideology. However, those that arose at the turn of the century enjoyed predominant success in the Hellenistic world. IV and III centuries BC e. the teachings of the Stoics and Epicurus, which absorbed the main features of the worldview of the new era.

Philosophy of the Hellenistic era:

Stoicism

The philosophical teachings of the Hellenistic era moved far away from polis ideology. Philosophy is dominated by ethical issues and therefore two new philosophical schools are becoming the most popular: Stoic and Epicurean.

The first, Stoic, received its name from the place where its followers gathered - the painted Portico of Stoa Poicile ( Stoa Poikile ) in Athens. The expression “philosophy of the Portico” is sometimes used. It existed for approximately five centuries; two stages of its development occurred in the ancient Greek era. The last, third, stage covers part of the history of Rome and the beginning of the Christian era.

Most of the sources of the Greek Stoa have been lost forever. Judging by the surviving materials, we can conclude that the Stoics were concerned with logic, physics, and ethics, which are of greatest interest. They and the Epicureans are united by a common interest in the problems of human happiness as the goal of his entire life. However, the Stoics saw its meaning in following nature. From the unity of man and nature, they derived the main provisions of their ethical teaching, the main life values ​​of people, including health, strength, heredity, longevity, etc.

The Stoics were looking for moral and philosophical support for man in a crisis of the foundations of the city, weakening the ties of the individual with society. To achieve happiness he must live in harmony with nature. The path to happiness is blocked by passions and temptations. The sage must overcome them, get rid of them in himself. The ideal state is dispassion, apathy, indifference to wealth, beauty, even health, that is, to everything that can confuse the soul.

The activity of people in accordance with reason and nature means they fulfill their duty ( kathekon ). And although the Stoics deduced the duty of man from his biological nature, this very concept, which was later given a socio-ethical meaning, firmly entered into European culture in general and the moral horizon of the individual in particular.

To the Stoic school, founded in 302 BC. e. in Athens, Zeno of Kition (about 336 264 BC), belonged to many major philosophers and scientists of Hellenistic times, for example, Chrysippus of Sol ( III V. BC BC), Panetius of Rhodes ( II V. BC BC), Posidonius of Apamea ( I V. BC BC) and others. Among them were people of different political orientations - from advisers to kings (Zeno) to inspirers of social transformations (Spherus was the mentor of Cleomenes in Sparta, Blossius was Aristonicus in Pergamon). The Stoics focus their main attention on man as an individual and ethical problems; questions about the essence of being are in second place for them.

The feeling of instability of a person’s status in conditions of continuous war and social conflicts and the weakening of ties with the collective of citizens of the polis, the Stoics opposed the idea of ​​human dependence on a higher good force (logos, nature, god) that controls everything that exists. In their view, a person is no longer a citizen of the polis, but a citizen of the cosmos, that is, a cosmopolitan; to achieve happiness, he must recognize the pattern of phenomena predetermined by a higher power (fate) and live in harmony with nature. It is essential that from the Stoic interpretation of the unity of the rational and natural principles (logos and physis) of man came a far-reaching conclusion about the natural equality of people: a slave is not a slave because he was born a slave, but because he has not mastered the logos; nature itself has nothing to do with it. Nobility of blood and superiority of race myths. Thus, the Stoics refuted the dogmas of the classics of philosophy, including Aristotle, who justified the shameful institution of slavery. For that era, this formulation of the question was truly revolutionary.

There is a connection in the Stoics' philosophical understanding of the majestic but objectively dispassionate nature with their ideal of man, who must also be able to suppress his passions. Apathy (from Greek. apatheia - insensibility) is intended to introduce a person to nature and logos, to warn against unbridled sensual desires. It was a call for people to act according to the logical canons of cold reason, the alienated intellect of the sages. However, this is unlikely to contribute to the achievement of happiness, which the philosophers of the Stoa cared about.

Eclecticism and the ambiguity of the basic tenets of the Stoics ensured their popularity in different strata of Hellenistic society and allowed the doctrines of Stoicism to converge with mystical beliefs and astrology.

Epicureanism

Also running out of IV V. BC The school of Epicurus, called the “Garden,” also arose in Athens (the philosopher’s friends and students gathered in his garden).

Epicurus is the son of a schoolteacher, who, according to Diogenes Laertius, went into philosophy at the age of fourteen out of contempt for literature teachers when they could not explain to him what the word “chaos” means in Hesiod. At the age of 18, he became acquainted with the teachings of Democritus, and then took lessons on Plato’s philosophy from Plato’s student Pamphilus.

Epicurus shunned any participation in public life in your time of troubles, caring for the good of the individual, and not the whole society. The maxim was attributed to him: “Live unnoticed.”

The inscription on the gate of his garden read: “Wanderer, here you will feel good, here the highest good is pleasure.”

In the worldview of Epicurus, physics and ethics are most significantly represented, that is, an understanding of natural processes and a set of issues related to man. In the field of physics, ontological problems were studied, and in ethics, epistemological ones. Having not created, unlike Parmenides or Anaxagoras, an original system of ontological ideas, he focused on the interpretation and development of the ideas of Leucippus and Democritus in atomism. And here he said his word in such a way that without his views the materialistic teaching of antiquity about atoms cannot be considered complete.

Epicurus proposed that the quantitative differences of atoms in their configuration, weight and size underlie the diversity of things. He further suggested that atoms different sizes, although ontologically indivisible, theoretically (logically) should contain their parts, that is, be divisible. Finally, an important fundamental innovation in atomism was the understanding of the nature of the movement of elementary particles. It was conceived not as equal to itself along parallel trajectories, but as an essentially chaotic movement, since it is subject to deviation or declination (from lat. declinatio - deviation) from a straight line. As you can see, the philosopher’s assumptions, although expressed in the most general form, moreover, with elements of mystification, turned out to be prophetic and were scientifically and experimentally confirmed more than two thousand years later (the discovery of the random Brownian motion of the smallest particles (1827) and the initial proof of the divisibility of atoms, and then their splitting at the end XIX and XX centuries).

The achievements of Epicurus and his “Garden” in the field of ethics were significant. It should be borne in mind that the deep crisis of ancient Greek society was accompanied by the collapse of the city-states. And this led to a weakening of the ties of free citizens with the state and society, an increase in the independence and sovereignty of man, his individualism. Having ceased to be an elementary part of the state, freed from its pressure and control, people strived for self-affirmation, happiness, freedom and enjoyment of life.

These new trends in social reality were expressed by the ethics of Epicureanism. Subsequently, this trend intensified even more in connection with the abolition of Greek statehood and the transformation of free Greek citizens of the polis into subjects of the Roman Empire. Thus, Epicureanism was destined to exist until the triumph at the beginning of the new era of Christianity, which declared materialism and the new ethics godless and heretical.

The ethics of Epicurus are based on reflections on happiness and the means of achieving it by man, on true pleasure and rational enjoyment of life without physical and moral suffering. To do this, one must free oneself from the fear of death; from everyday problems and worries; from politics that divides people. The main thing for a person is to achieve inner peace, ataraxia (from the Greek. ataraxia - equanimity), which requires privacy from society, and especially from the crowd. Another source of pleasure in life and life is the selfless friendship of individuals who are close in spirit, united by a common desire for happiness. This is the basic formula for happiness and the path to it.

Unlike a Stoic, an Epicurean is accessible to passions, feelings of pity, grief, etc. To the Stoic ideal active life, participation in the affairs of the state, Epicurus contrasted the ideal of a contemplative life, in the silence of equanimity, away from the bustle.

The philosophy of Epicurus in its interpretation of the problems of existence continued the development of the materialism of Democritus, but man also occupied a central place in it. Epicurus saw his task in freeing people from the fear of death and fate: he argued that the gods do not influence the life of nature and man, and proved the materiality of the soul. He saw a person’s happiness in finding peace and equanimity, which can only be achieved through knowledge and self-improvement, avoiding passions and suffering and abstaining from active activity.

Skepticism

Skepticism is a movement in Hellenistic-Roman philosophy that rejects the possibility of objective knowledge about natural and social processes in their essence and patterns. Hence the classical requirement of “abstinence from judgment” (epoke) in theory and equanimity and serenity (ataraxia) in practice. The name of the school comes from the ancient Greek word “skepticos” - seeking, exploring, considering. So the source of skepticism was still the desire for knowledge and disappointment in its results.

The founder of ancient Greek skepticism Pyrrho (c. 365 275 BC). He and his students believed that an apathetic and skeptical attitude towards everything that surrounds him allows a person to get rid of life’s troubles and anxieties. He must refrain from making value judgments about all things, thanks to which his mental balance and peace are preserved. And without this, happiness is unattainable.

There are early and late skepticism. The works and ideas of Sextus Empiricus belong to the later period ( II V. BC), a doctor by profession, who tried to combine skeptical philosophy with the methodology of empiricist doctors and defended the ethics of common sense. In his works “Three Books of Pyrrhonian Propositions” and “Against the Scientists,” Sextus Empiricus advises practicing skills and respecting the laws and customs of your country. Without doubting the existence of phenomena, skeptics believed that only they had reliability. Skeptics considered appearance as the only criterion of truth - “everything just seems.”

Skeptics, who became close to the followers of Plato's Academy, directed their criticism mainly against the epistemology of Epicurus and the Stoics. They also identified happiness with the concept of “ataraxia,” but interpreted it as awareness of the impossibility of knowing the world (Timon the Skeptic, III V. BC BC), which meant a refusal to recognize reality and social activity.

Cynicism

The teachings of the Stoics, Epicurus, and skeptics, although they reflected some common features worldviews of their era were designed for the most cultured and privileged circles. In contrast, the Cynics spoke to the crowd in the streets, squares, and ports, proving the unreasonableness of the existing order and preaching poverty not only in words, but also in their way of life.

Cynicism is a form of worldview, which was characterized by a total negation of the values, norms, institutions, traditions, laws, and ideology of the society in which it appeared and existed. Cynicism philosophical school, named after the place in Athens where the training took place ( Kynosarges).

Cynicism did not grow out of nowhere: starting from generally accepted views, the Cynics, using the “negative filiation of ideas,” which was called “coinage,” developed new ideas that were directly opposed to existing ones. At the same time, having adopted some of the principles of the philosophy of the Sophists, Socrates, and the ideas of Euripides, they gave them their own new understanding and created a system that made it possible to perceive Cynicism as an independent philosophical school.

Having adopted from their predecessors the ideas of natural equality of people, simplicity and poverty, equality of women, cosmopolitanism, internal freedom, individualism, the Cynics themselves posed a number of important problems that worried people for many centuries. This is imaginary and real freedom, external and internal, historical determinism and freedom of choice, moral autonomy and responsibility of the individual to society, culture and nature, life as an act, the moral ideal of the poor, word and meaning, man and nature, the problem of definition, the role of science and many others.

However, this aspect of the activities of the Cynics usually remains in the shadow of the shocking behavior of the representatives of Cynicism, who themselves, preferring “sermons to actions,” said that “virtue lies not in words, but in deeds.”

The founder of Cynicism was Socrates' student Antisthenes (450 360 BC), who preached the simplification of life.

He expressed his views in the form apothegm a short and apt instructive saying (from the Greek “to speak directly”). Antisthenes argued that work is good, citing Hercules as an example from the Hellenes, and Cyrus from the barbarians. This is reflected in the following apothegms: “One should strive for pleasures that come after work, and not before work”; Having seen a picture depicting Achilles serving the centaur Chiron, Antisthenes remarked: “Well done, Achilles! You did the right thing in that you didn’t even refuse to serve for the sake of education.”

Antisthenes was the first to give a definition (definition) of the concept: “A concept is that which reveals what this or that object is or is.” Despite the fact that Antisthenes was considered an exponent of “grassroots ideology,” his apothegms give a high assessment of intelligence and thinking. When one boy was about to listen to him and asked what needed to be prepared for this, Antisthenes replied: “Prepare a book, but wisely, and a pen, and wisely, and tablets, and wisely.” And when the student complained that he had lost his notes, Antisthenes said: “I should have kept them in my soul.”

Rejecting most of the values ​​of his contemporary society, Antisthenes retained a great sense of self-esteem: once having learned that Plato spoke badly of him, Antisthenes remarked: “This is the lot of kings: to do good and hear bad.”

The fame of Antisthenes was surpassed by his student Diogenes (412 323 BC), famous for his shocking behavior, caustic wit and ascetic lifestyle, around which legends were formed (according to legend, he lived in a barrel). Life brought him into contact with many great contemporaries, such as Plato, Demosthenes, Euclid, Alexander the Great. He treated everyone with caustic contempt: he said that Euclid had not disciples, but “bile people,” that Plato was distinguished not by eloquence, but by “idle talk,” that demagogues (Demosthenes) were “minions of the mob.” He laughed at Plato’s eloquence in the following way: Diogenes happened to ask Plato either for wine or for dried figs. One day Plato sent him a whole barrel, to which Diogenes responded with the following words: “When they ask you how much two and two are, do you answer: twenty? This way you give something that is not what is asked for, and you do not answer what is asked.”

Legends tell how Diogenes was looking for an honest man with a lantern during the day, how Alexander the Great, having heard about the sage living in a barrel, visited him, asked how he could be useful to him, to which he received the answer: “Move away and do not block the sun for me.” “If I were not Alexander, I would like to be Diogenes,” Alexander replied.

Diogenes, with his behavior and statements, most adequately characterizes the ethics of all Cynics: egalitarian, negative, utilitarian, natural, rationalistic, eudaimonistic (recognizing the desire for happiness (from the Greek “happiness”) as the basis of human behavior) and maximalist.

One day Diogenes was discussing important subjects, but no one listened to him. Then he began to screech like a bird, people came running, and he shamed them for running for trifles, but not moving for important things. He said that people compete to see who can kick whom into the ditch, but no one competes in the art of being beautiful and kind.

Confirming by his example the maxim of the Cynics “to preach by action,” Diogenes, raising the sons of Xeniades (the slave owner who bought him when he was captured), taught them, among all other sciences, to ride a horse, shoot a bow, wield a sling, throw darts; and then in the palaestra he ordered the mentor to temper them not like wrestlers, but only so much so that they would be distinguished by health and color. Children memorized many passages from the works of poets, historians and Diogenes himself; He presented all the initial information to them briefly for ease of memorization. He taught them to take care of themselves at home, to eat simple food and drink water, to cut their hair short, and not to wear jewelry...

Subsequent thinkers who highly valued Diogenes, such as Rabelais and Diderot, perceived him as an ideal sage, infinitely free and independent, striking down all injustice with laughter.

Also, the most famous of the Cynics of Hellenistic times were Crates of Thebes (about 365285 BC) and Bion Borysthenes ( III V. BC e.). Crates, who came from a wealthy family, became interested in Cynicism, freed his slaves, distributed property and, like Diogenes, began to lead the life of a beggar philosopher. Sharply opposing his philosophical opponents, Crates preached moderate cynicism and was known for his philanthropy. He had large number students and followers, among them for some time was Zeno, the founder of the Stoic school.

Bion was born in the Northern Black Sea region into the family of a freedman and a hetaera; in his youth he was sold into slavery; Having received freedom and inheritance after the death of his master, he came to Athens and joined the Cynic school. The name Bion is associated with the appearance diatribe speeches and conversations filled with the preaching of Cynic philosophy, polemics with opponents and criticism of generally accepted views. However, the Cynics did not go further than criticism of the rich and rulers; they saw the achievement of happiness in the renunciation of needs and desires, in “ beggar's bag” and contrasted the philosopher-beggar not only with the kings, but also with the “unreasonable crowd.”

CONCLUSION

Everything written above does not exhaust the significance of the Hellenistic era in the history of world civilization. It was at this time, for the first time in the history of mankind, that contacts between Afro-Asian and European peoples acquired not an episodic and temporary, but a permanent and sustainable character, and not only in the form of military expeditions or trade relations, but above all in the form of cultural cooperation, in the creation new aspects of social life within the Hellenistic states. This process of interaction in the field of material production was reflected in an indirect form in the spiritual culture of the Hellenistic era.

The joint creativity of Afro-Asian and European peoples manifested itself most clearly in the field of the religious ideology of Hellenism. And, ultimately, on the same basis, a political and philosophical idea arose about the universe, the universality of the world, which found expression in the works of historians on the ecumene, in the creation of “Universal Histories” (Polybius, etc.), in the teachings of the Stoics about the cosmos and the citizen of the cosmos etc.

REFERENCES

1. Karmin, A.S., Bernatsky, G.G. Philosophy.St. Petersburg: DNA Publishing House, 2001. 536 p.
2. Migolatyev, A.A. Philosophy: Textbook for universities. M.: UNITY-DANA, 2001. p.45-47.
3. Spirkin, A.G. Philosophy: A Textbook for technical universities. M.: Gardariki, 2002. p.270-273.
4. Philosophy: Textbook for universities / Ed. prof. L.A. Nikitich. M.: UNITY-DANA, 2000. p.100-107.
5. Philosophy: Textbook / Ed. A.F. Zotova, V.V. Mironova, A.V. Razin. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M.: Academic project; Trixta, 2004. p.97-100.

With the conquests of Alexander the Great, the classical era in the history of antiquity ends. The small cozy city-polis with the adjacent countryside, as the basis of the ancient slave-owning democracy, ceased its independent existence. On the ruins of Alexander’s empire, the unstable Hellenistic monarchies of the Ptolemies, Seleucids and others arose. The concept of “citizen” was replaced by the concept of “subject”, and polis patriotism was supplanted by cosmopolitanism, for which the fatherland is the whole world. Thus began the Hellenistic era, which coincided with the end of the classical ancient philosophy, the peak and end of which is the philosophy of Aristotle. This era conventionally lasted until 529 AD, when the last pagan philosophical school was closed. Further fate philosophy will be connected with Christianity. Philosophy from a theoretical system in the Hellenistic era turns into a state of mind and expresses, first of all, the self-awareness of a person who has lost himself in the world. Although in the philosophy of Epicurus and the Stoics we also find “physics,” the latter no longer has a self-sufficient and self-valuable character in their systems, but is subordinated to ethics, which moves to the very center of their philosophy. The ethical orientation of Hellenistic philosophy is also manifested in the fact that the result of the philosophers' searches is the image of a sage who embodies the ideal of worthy behavior.

Epicurus and Epicureanism. Having been studying science since the age of 14, Epicurus(341/340-270 BC) became acquainted with the atomistic teaching of Democritus, communicated with the Platonist Pamphilus, and possibly listened to the then head of the Platonic Academy, Xenocrates. Earning his living by teaching, first in the cities of Asia Minor and then in Athens, Epicurus founded his own school called the Garden of Epicurus. On the gate of this garden there was an inscription: “Wanderer, you will feel good here: here pleasure is the highest good.” Of the three hundred works of Epicurus, only three epistles have reached us: to Herodotus, Pythocles and Menoeceus, a work called “Maxims” and a number of fragments.

Naturally, the atomism of Democritus and Epicurus have significant differences. Firstly, Democritus was a proponent of strict determinism in explaining the movement of atoms. In contrast, Epicurus attributes spontaneous deviations to atoms in their motion - the so-called “clinamena”. Democritus, as we know, did not allow for chance in nature. But if chance is impossible, then freedom is impossible. Namely, she was primarily concerned with Epicurus. The problem of freedom in philosophy comes to the fore precisely when its degree is existing society decreases significantly. Secondly, unlike Democritus, Epicurus is interested not so much in the object as in the subject. His explanation of the structure of the world is subordinated to the development of a person’s line of behavior. And this expressed the spirit of the Hellenistic era in its own way. Accordingly, physics in Epicurus is subordinated to ethics. The logical part of his teaching, called “canon,” is also subordinate to it. Speaking about the rules of knowledge of the world, Epicurus proceeds from the fact that true knowledge is given to us by the senses, while lies and errors come from additions of reason. Proclaiming pleasure as a principle human life Epicurus extends this idea to the theory of knowledge, which for him, unlike the rationalist Democritus, has a clearly expressed empirical character. Nevertheless, limiting the mind in understanding the world, Epicurus insists on its participation in the development of a person’s life credo. Man, according to Epicurus, must be free. But if he cannot achieve freedom in public and political life, then he should try to achieve inner freedom, that is, he should free himself from fear and suffering. If the goal of Epicureanism is pleasure, then it is natural that such a philosophy should proclaim the main enemy - suffering.

To live without anxiety, you must free yourself from the fear of the gods. In his enlightenment, Epicurus does not reach the point of outright atheism. But he gives an explanation of the gods that might be called aesthetic, as opposed to religious. First, Epicurus asserts an infinite number of worlds. This was an important innovation compared to previous philosophy and science, where the entire cosmos was limited to the Earth and the celestial spheres surrounding it. Secondly, the gods, according to Epicurus, have no place outside the world. And he places them in the so-called “intermundiums,” that is, in interworld spaces. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, they cannot influence the destinies of people, and people should honor them solely for their beauty and perfection.

Knowledge of the reasons for what is happening, as well as the nature of the gods, Epicurus believes, can free us from fears. But happiness, as already mentioned, is not only the absence of fear, but also the absence of suffering. It is clear that bodily suffering cannot be completely avoided. However, as Epicurus notes, a person’s bodily suffering is much less intense than the mental suffering associated with it. And a person has power over his mental states, and therefore he can avoid them. In addition, Epicurus understands bodily suffering as the result of excess in bodily joys. Therefore, pleasure as a principle of ethics in Epicurus is expressed not in drunkenness or gluttony, but in moderation. Fear of death, according to Epicurus, is also associated with a “false opinion” about it. Epicurus taught that there is no reason to be afraid of death. After all, we practically never encounter death: when we exist, it is not yet there, and when it is, we are no longer there.

These are the main features of the ethics of Epicurus. Its difference from the ethics of the ancient classics, from the ethics of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, lies again in the fact that this is not the ethics of a citizen, but of a private individual. With regard to social and political life, Epicurus believes, in accordance with his division of human needs into “natural” and “unnatural,” that such a need in humans is “unnatural.” Therefore, the individual should, if possible, avoid this participation. Here Epicurus follows the principle “Live unnoticed!”

It should be said that individualism in the ethics of Epicureanism intensified as historical development and its transition to the Roman world. Despite the warnings of Epicurus himself against the vulgarization of his philosophy, in the late Roman period it became widespread precisely in a vulgarized form. This was due to the deep crisis into which ancient world during the emergence of Christianity. Christianity was the answer to this crisis. The most famous adherent of Epicureanism in Ancient Rome there was Titus Lucretius Carus(99-55 BC). He outlined his views in the poem “On the Nature of Things,” which has survived in its entirety to this day. An interesting fact is that Epicurean philosophy did not help Lucretius avoid fatal passions, and he committed suicide at the age of 44.

Basic ideas of Stoicism. The founder of Stoicism was Zeno of Kition(333/32-262 BC), originally from the island of Cyprus. Zeno, as a person who did not have Athenian citizenship, could not rent premises for classes, and therefore he gave his lectures in the portico. In Greek, portico means “standing,” hence the name of the Stoic school. Although, having passed into the Russian language, this name began to be associated with the verb “stand”, and stoicism began to be associated with fortitude. It is customary to distinguish three periods in the development of Stoic philosophy. The first period of the “Ancient Stoa” (late IV-III centuries BC) is represented by the figures of Zeno himself and his associates Cleanthes and Chrysippus, who wrote more than seven hundred books that were later lost. The second period is called the “Middle Stoa” (II-I centuries BC), where the main figures are Panetius and Posidonius, in whose teachings eclectic ideas are already present. The third period is the “Late Stoa”, which developed in Ancient Rome and is represented by Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus. It coincided with the period of the formation of Christianity, one of the “theoretical sources” of which was the philosophy of Stoicism.

Zeno tried to create a teaching that would provide the basis for the internal independence of man. His philosophical teaching included three parts. The first part was logic, then came physics and ethics. But in fact, the most valuable thing among the Stoics was their ethical teaching. By the way, Zeno compared his system of philosophy to a garden, where the fence is logic, the fruit trees are physics, and the fruits that grow on the trees are ethics. In Stoicism we find a logical, cosmological, physical and ethical “justification” for evil and suffering in this world. Firstly, the Stoics argued that nothing exists without its opposite, and therefore good in a perfect world is logically supplemented by evil. Secondly, what is evil and misfortune for a person turns out to be good for the cosmos as a whole. Thirdly, at the lower levels of existence, the blind necessity of nature resists the divine mind, and from this resistance of the material side of the world to its spiritual essence, evil also grows. And, finally, the last ethical explanation of the nature of evil, the meaning of which is that evil in relation to man has its own highest purpose. Evil exists in the world so that people, enduring adversity, improve their pneuma, becoming more virtuous and more spiritual. By the way, it is the pneuma of the Stoics that connects together the component parts of the soul. Since people’s misfortunes have their own cosmic meaning, it is important to develop a lifestyle and behavior that corresponds to this meaning. A sage is one who has achieved dispassion, which the Greeks called “apathy,” and equanimity, which in Greek sounds like “ataraxia.” Moreover, stoic enduring of adversity is given to the sage through the highest tension of the pneuma. In addition, the sage harmoniously combines “autarky,” i.e., self-sufficiency, with submission to the good. And I must say, the pathos of calm adherence to duty will be popular, especially among the citizens of Rome. It is precisely in the historical conditions of Rome that a note of heroic pessimism will prevail in Stoicism. In a world in which meaning and harmony are diminishing every day, the only support is following duty. A stoic is one who holds on to this support and fulfills his duty to the end, even if everything around him collapses. Moreover, this is a duty not so much to others as to oneself. After all, virtue, the Stoics believed, is its own reward. And in such a transformation of the sense of duty from a purely external to an internal one is one of the greatest achievements of the ancient consciousness.

But let us return to the principle of humility, which will move from Stoicism into Christian ethics. Its essence is to accept the inevitable with peace of mind and without exaltation, without offering useless and vain resistance to fate. But in Stoicism, wisdom has not yet become the antipode of reason. Therefore, the Stoic ideal, unlike the Christian one, is not to cry, not to laugh, but to understand. The ethics of the Stoics is deeply individualistic, despite the idea of ​​subordination to the whole, world Logos, and closer to society, the state. They ignore ethnic and social differences. Man, they believed, belongs to the whole, he is a cosmopolitan. In other words, the Stoics were the first to declare themselves “citizens of the universe.” And, at the same time, being a citizen of the world, a man of the Hellenistic era is alone in this world. That closest cell - the ancient polis, in which the individual was rooted as a citizen, collapsed, and the person found himself, on the one hand, alone with himself, and on the other, alone with the eternal and infinite cosmos. But in neither case is a person at home: the house is too small, and the world is too spacious. From this contradiction the Christian community will subsequently be born as that form of collectivity in which a person will try to find himself in a new way.

Skepticism. The loss of oneself and self-doubt gave rise to such a direction of Hellenistic philosophy as skepticism. "Skepticism" translated from Greek means "doubt." The founder of skepticism as a special trend in ancient philosophy was Pyrrho(c. 360-275/270 BC). He participated in the Asian campaigns of Alexander the Great, where he met the “gymnosophists,” i.e., “naked sages,” as the Greeks called Indian magicians. After the death of Alexander the Great, Pyrrho returned to his homeland of Elis, where he taught. Like the great Socrates, Pyrrho died without writing a word.

Skeptics do not deny the truth at all. They make judgments: “This seems bitter or sweet to me.” But they do not recognize the truth of the judgments: “This is really sweet,” or “This is really bitter.” This position is perfectly illustrated by evidence according to which, in response to the direct question “Are you alive, Pyrrho?” he allegedly replied “I don’t know.” This suggests that the skeptic Pyrrho was not even sure of his own existence. His “I don’t know” is equivalent to “It seems to me that I am alive.”

All this means that in the philosophy of skeptics a true judgment is possible about how an object appears to me, but it is impossible to judge what the object is in essence. This means that the transition from phenomenon to essence is impossible. For Socrates and Plato, the transition from appearance to essence is possible only through dialectics, which reveals a contradiction in everyday representation and overcomes it. As for wisdom, it, according to Pyrrho, consists in abstaining from any specific judgments, which corresponds to Greek term“adoxia”, as well as in complete equanimity. From the words of Pyrrho’s student, whose name was Timon, we know that for happiness a person needs to know the nature of things, as well as our attitude towards them, and accordingly, the way of behavior in this world should be determined. According to Pyrrho, things are indistinguishable and impermanent, and therefore we cannot have confidence in them and make judgments about them. Accordingly, in this state of affairs, human behavior should be expressed in aphasia, which means silence about the nature of things, and apathy, i.e. a state of dispassion. It is in adoxia, aphasia and apathy, according to skeptics, that the highest degree of happiness available to a philosopher consists.

Subsequent skeptics, namely Timon (320-230 BC), Aenesidemus (1st century AD), Agrippa (life dates unknown) and Sextus Empiricus (2nd century AD) developed skepticism through called tropes, i.e. arguments directed against all judgments about reality. It is known that Aenesidemus formulated ten tropes based on the relativity of things. For example, the same thing can be both useful and harmful. After all, sea water is harmful for humans, but, on the contrary, it is beneficial for fish. Ants swallowed by a person cause pain in his stomach, and bears, on the contrary, when they fall ill, are treated by swallowing ants. Other paths of Aenesidemus show us differences in the perception of the same object associated with changes in the state of our body. After all, a hungry person perceives differently than a well-fed person, and a sick person perceives differently than a healthy person.

The result of Hellenistic philosophical teachings is the same - the collapse of culture and philosophy based on rationalism and rational legal and ontological systems, on personal intuitions that substantiate the unity and harmony of man with nature and the cosmos. Visible and rationally comprehended social, political and ontological standards are being replaced by transpersonal and transrational regulations.

In a huge sociality, a person could no longer influence the world, he obeyed it; large social associations are characterized not by the problem of a person’s influence on the world, but by the problem of calming and consoling a person. It is necessary to bring a person to the level of understanding nature - understanding civilization. Epicurus: "Live unnoticed." The problem of personal happiness comes to the fore, then it is possible to achieve ataraxia (equanimity of spirit) - this is the natural state of a person, which allows him to endure the blows of fate. But the justification system was different in different schools. A state in a period of social unrest is the image of a ship in a storm. Epicurus proposed this way of justifying personal happiness: happiness is pleasure. Pleasure is the ability to be content with what you have. The Stoics understood personal happiness differently: “Submit to fate!” The intelligent, they believed, are led by fate, but the unreasonable are dragged. Epicurus, addressing man, did not disparage man and human dignity. He did not propose an active model of social behavior, he proposed to rid a person of prejudice and fear. The main task of philosophy according to Epicurus is to justify and achieve human happiness. Skepticism offers the following way out - refraining from judgment. It is necessary to abandon the belief that truth is accessible to man. No proposition can be true. Skeptics use argumentation: from the subject, from the object, from the relationship between subject and object. The only thing that follows for a person is a ban on judgment and the achievement of ataraxia, equanimity. The Stoics offer a different position. This is the philosophy of duty, the philosophy of fate.

Hellenistic era (IV century BC - IV century AD)

• 1. Stoicism (Seneca And Marcus Aurelius). The teachings of Stoicism were based on principle of fatalism. The world is ruled by providence, everything is predetermined in advance. Carrying out is an inevitable necessity, representing a chain of irreversible causes.
• 2. Epicureanism.

Very often the teachings of Epicurus are distorted. At the heart of the teachings of Epicurus is the concept "pleasure". A person’s happiness lies in receiving pleasure, but the meaning of pleasure is the pleasure of the spirit (for example, art, literature).

Suffering is fear.

“When we are alive, there is no death. When death is there, we are not.”

The soul is a material formation, it is mortal.

3. Skepticism- this doctrine was based on the thesis: "Refrain from judging."

There are no concepts of Absolute Knowledge and Absolute Truth. Everything is relative.

4. Neoplatonism (Plotinus/250 - 270 AD /)

This doctrine was based on principle of emanation(“outpouring”), smooth transition.

Philosophy of early Hellenism

In the Hellenistic period, the person himself, the subject, was of particular interest. Philosophy was called upon to somehow orient the Hellene (Hellene - an ancient Greek who lived in the era of Alexander the Great) in a world of ever-new upheavals. This task was solved typically, in the spirit of ancient Greek philosophy, the original principles of which were now extended to the problem of man and society in order to resolve the problem of subjectivity. In this regard, the three main philosophical movements of early Hellenism are discussed below: Stoicism, Epicureanism, and skepticism.

STOICISM. As a philosophical movement, Stoicism existed from the 3rd century. BC until the 3rd century AD The main representatives of early Stoicism were Zeno of Citium, Cleanthes and Chrysippus. Later, Plutarch, Cicero, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius became famous as Stoics.

The physical views of the Stoics are of little originality. It is believed that the body of the world is composed of fire, air, earth and water. the soul of the world is a fiery and airy pneuma, a kind of all-penetrating breath. According to a long ancient tradition, fire was considered by the Stoics to be the main element; of all the elements it is the most pervasive and vital. Thanks to this, the entire Cosmos, including man, is a single fiery organism with its own laws (logos) and fluidity. The main question for the Stoics is to determine the place of man in the Cosmos.

Having carefully thought through the situation, the Stoics came to the conviction that the laws of existence are beyond the control of man, man is subject to fate, fate. There is no escape from fate; reality must be accepted as it is, with all its fluidity of bodily properties, which ensures the diversity of human life. Fate and fate can be hated, but a stoic is more inclined to love it, receiving rest within the framework of what is available.

Stoics strive to discover the meaning of life. The eidos and categories of Plato and Aristotle no longer suit them; they cannot see in them the fluidity of life and its meaning. Physical substances, like fire, do not have meaning. But what is the essence of the subjective?

Word, the Stoics answer, its semantic meaning(lekton). Lecton - meaning - is above all positive and negative judgments; we are talking about judgment in general. Lecton is also carried out in the inner life of a person, creating a state ataraxia, i.e. peace of mind, equanimity. The Stoic is by no means indifferent to everything that happens; on the contrary, he treats everything with maximum attention and interest. But he still understands the world, its logos, law in a certain way and, in full accordance with it, maintains peace of mind. So, the main points of the Stoic picture of the world are as follows:

• 1) Cosmos is a fiery organism;
• 2) man exists within the framework of cosmic laws, hence his fatalism, destiny, and peculiar love for both;
• 3) the meaning of the world and man - lekton, the significance of the word, which is neutral to both the mental and the physical;
• 4) understanding the world inevitably leads to a state of ataraxia, dispassion;
• 5) not only individual, but people as a whole constitute an inseparable unity with the Cosmos; The cosmos can and should be considered both as God and as a world state (thus the idea of ​​pantheism (nature is God) and the idea of ​​human equality are developed).

EPICUREANISM. The largest representatives of Epicureanism are himself Epicurus And Lucretius Car. Epicureanism as a philosophical movement existed at the same historical time as Stoicism - this is the period of the 5th - 6th centuries at the turn of the old and new eras. Like the Stoics, the Epicureans raise, first of all, questions of structure and personal comfort in the difficult historical conditions of a slave-owning society in the late period of its development. Fire-like soul - general idea among the Stoics and Epicureans, but the Stoics see some meaning behind it, and the Epicureans see the basis of sensations. For the Stoics, in the foreground is reason in accordance with nature, and for the Epicureans, sensation in accordance with nature is in the foreground. The sensory world is what is of main interest to the Epicureans. From here the basic ethical principle of the Epicureans is pleasure. The teaching that puts pleasure at the forefront is called hedonism.

For the Epicureans, the sensory world is the present reality. The world of sensuality is unusually changeable and multiple. Epicurean reality is reflected in the principle of atomicity. The sensory world is changeable, but not so much that it is absolutely continuous. There are ultimate forms of feelings, sensory atoms, or, in other words, atoms not in themselves, but in the world of feelings. There are many atoms; The Epicureans, as opposed to the Stoics, advocate the primacy of plurality. But then the idea of ​​stoic fate, fate, is called into question. Epicurus puts this very beautifully in the form of the idea that atoms can spontaneously bend in one direction or another. According to Democritus, the world was formed from the mutual collision of atoms. Epicurus endows atoms with spontaneity, “free will.” Atoms move along curves, intertwining and unraveling. The idea of ​​stoic rock is coming to an end.

The Epicurean does not have any master over him, there is no need, he has free will. He can retire, indulge in his own pleasures, and immerse himself in himself. The Epicurean is not afraid of death: "As long as we exist, there is no death; when death exists, we are no more". Life is the main pleasure with its beginning and even its end. (Dying, Epicurus took a warm bath and asked to bring him wine.)

Man consists of atoms that provide him with a wealth of sensations in the world, where he can always find a comfortable abode for himself, refusing active activity and the desire to reorganize the world. The Epicurean treats the life world completely disinterestedly and at the same time strives to merge with it. If we take the qualities of the Epicurean sage to their absolute extreme, we get an idea of ​​the gods. They also consist of atoms, but non-disintegrating atoms, and therefore the gods are immortal. The gods are blessed; they have no need to interfere in the affairs of people and the universe. Yes, this would not give any positive result, because in a world where there is free will, there are no and cannot be sustainable, purposeful actions. Therefore, the gods have nothing to do on Earth; Epicurus places them in interworldly space, where they rush around. But Epicurus does not deny the worship of God (he himself visited the temple). This must be understood in the sense that by honoring the gods, man himself strengthens himself in the correctness of his own self-elimination from active practical life along the paths of Epicurean ideas. We list the main ones:

• 1) everything consists of atoms that can spontaneously deviate from straight trajectories;
• 2) a person consists of atoms, which provides him with a wealth of feelings and pleasures;
• 3) the world of feelings is not illusory, it is the main content of the human, everything else, including the ideal-mental, is closed on sensory life;
• 4) the gods are indifferent to human affairs (this, they say, is evidenced by the presence of evil in the world).
• 5) for happy life a person needs three main components: the absence of bodily suffering (aponia), equanimity of the soul (ataraxia), friendship (as an alternative to political and other confrontations).

Skepticism. Skepticism is the most characteristic feature of all ancient philosophy; As an independent philosophical direction, it functions during the period of relevance of Stoicism and Epicureanism. The largest representatives - Pyrrho And Sextus Empiricus.

The ancient skeptic rejected the knowability of life. To maintain inner peace, a person needs to know a lot from philosophy, but not in order to deny something or, conversely, affirm something (every statement is a negation, and, conversely, every negation is an affirmation). The ancient skeptic is by no means a nihilist; he lives as he wants, fundamentally avoiding the need to evaluate anything. The skeptic is in constant philosophical search, but he is convinced that true knowledge is, in principle, unattainable. Being appears in all the diversity of its fluidity (remember Heraclitus): there seems to be something definite, but it immediately disappears.

In this regard, the skeptic points to time itself; it exists, but it does not exist; it is impossible to “grab hold of” it. There is no stable meaning at all, everything is fluid, so live the way you want and accept life in its immediate reality. One who has known a lot cannot adhere to strictly unambiguous opinions. A skeptic can be neither a judge nor a lawyer. Skeptic Carneades, sent to Rome to petition for the abolition of the tax, one day spoke to the public in favor of the tax, another day - against the tax. It is better for the skeptical sage to remain silent. His silence is a philosophical answer to the questions put to him. By refraining from making certain judgments, the skeptic remains equanimous. The silence of a skeptic can be considered a wise way out of the situation, but one cannot help but see in it a certain emptiness of thought. Let us list the main provisions of ancient skepticism:

• 1) the world is fluid, it has no meaning and no clear definition;
• 2) every affirmation is also a negation, every “yes” is also a “no”; the true philosophy of skepticism is silence;
• 3) follow the “world of phenomena”, maintain inner peace.

Ancient skepticism, in its own way, brought to the limit philosophical attempts to cope with the difficulties of life without its logical and ideological understanding. Silence is both a kind of end to the philosophical search and an indication that new efforts are needed. In this regard, we move directly to late Hellenistic ideas, the main content of which was Neoplatonism.

Neoplatonism

The basic principles of Neoplatonism were developed Plotinus, who lived in Rome in adulthood.

Neoplatonists sought to provide a philosophical picture of everything that exists, including the Cosmos as a whole. It is impossible to understand the life of a subject outside the Cosmos, just as it is impossible to understand the life of the Cosmos without a subject. The existing is arranged hierarchically: the One-Good, Mind, Soul, Matter. The highest place in the hierarchy belongs to the One-Good. Matter.

One Good. The One is truly primordial, encompassing everything at one point. If, according to Neoplatonists, you recognize the existence of different things, for example, rational and unreasonable, then above it there is a limit of both, which is no longer one or the other. The One Good is achieved not in a rational way, but only as a result of super-rational ecstasy. It goes without saying that as a result of such ecstasy the subject escapes from various kinds of earthly difficulties.

The One is, as it were, overflowing with itself, it “pours out”, forming the Mind, World Mind. This "outpouring" or emanation is not a material process. It's about about the essential connection; the essence is everywhere, but is realized through something else. The One exists through the Mind.

The World Mind includes numbers and ideas in their systemically interconnected form. Mind is the prototype of all things.

The emanation of the Mind in turn leads to World Soul, which expresses everything animate. The soul produces all living beings. Everything that moves forms the Cosmos. The lowest form of being is matter. By itself, it is not active, it is inert, it is a receptive of possible forms and meaning.

The main task of a person is to deeply think through and feel his place in the structural hierarchy of existence. Good (Good) comes from above, from the One, evil - from below, from matter. Evil is not a thing; it has nothing to do with Good. A person can avoid evil to the extent that he manages to climb the ladder of the immaterial: Soul-Mind-United. The ladder of Soul-Mind-Unity corresponds to the sequence feeling - thought - ecstasy. Here, of course, attention is drawn to ecstasy, which stands above thought. But ecstasy, it should be noted, includes all the richness of the mental and sensory.

Neoplatonists see harmony and beauty everywhere; the One Good is actually responsible for them. Even chaos is harmonious. As for the life of people, it also, in principle, cannot contradict universal harmony. People are actors, they only carry out, each in their own way, the script that is laid down in the World Mind.

Scheme 2.13.3. Early Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoicism

Stoicism Nature is governed by one law - the law of self-preservation
It is within the power of man to be a wise man - to obey the reason of nature, or a fool - to ignore the reason of nature. Only intelligent life is good. Good is agreement with the main law of all nature - the law of self-preservation. To live virtuously is to follow this law in everything.
The sage divides all events into
Dependent on us (moral)		Out of our control (non-moral)
Bringers good	Bringers evil	Bringing neither good nor evil
The sphere of due, good, reason	The sphere of impropriety, vice, ignorance	Death, life, fame, work, pleasure, wealth, poverty, illness, health
The area of ​​free choice between virtue and vice		The area of ​​indifferent events for human freedom

Stoicism- a direction that originated in the Hellenistic era and lasted until the end ancient world. Zeno of Kition (336-264 BC) is the founder, Chrysippus of Sol (281-208 BC) is the systematizer of Stoicism. Only fragments of their works remain. Stoicism was very popular in Ancient Rome (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius). However, in theoretical terms this period was not marked by anything significant.

In contrast to Epicurus, the Stoics sought to justify the acquisition of peace of mind through rational submission to nature.

Basic tenets of Stoicism

Only that which acts or experiences action is real. Everything is bodily and everything is subject to one general law - the desire of all nature and all bodies for self-preservation.

The principles of nature are passive primary matter, the condensation and rarefaction of which creates the four elements - fire, air, earth and water, and from them all individual things, and the active mind, the soul of nature - God the Logos. The human mind is part of God the Logos.

Nature is reasonable living creature with all the functions of animals - growth, reproduction and self-propulsion. Thanks to God the Logos, everything in nature is predetermined, since it has its own purpose, and everything is connected with everything.

Nature exists cyclically, burning in a global fire and being reborn every 365x18,000 years.

To live virtuously means to subject one's individual mind to the fundamental law of nature, to live in accordance with the God-Logos of nature, to strive for everything to which it is like, and to reject everything to which it is not like.

Between virtue and vice there is nothing in between (against Aristotle). A favorite saying of the Stoics: “Fate leads the willing, but drags the unwilling.” All people are divided dichotomously into wise men and fools. He who possesses one virtue possesses all others. All goods are the same and every good is “desirable to the highest degree, allowing neither increase nor decrease.”

Wisdom consists in ignoring all circumstances that do not depend on us, and among all others in preferring what is in accordance with the reason of nature. QUOTES

“The first impulse of a living being, say the Stoics, is self-preservation, for nature is initially dear to itself... Therefore, we have to say that by nature a living being is close to its condition, and therefore it resists everything that is harmful and goes towards everything that is close to him".

“And to rational beings reason is given as a perfect leader, and for them to live according to nature means to live according to reason, because reason is the adjuster of impulse.”

“The ultimate goal is to live in accordance with nature and this is the same as living with virtue. Pleasure is something secondary, arising from actions that ensure [man’s] self-preservation” (Diogenes Laertius, “On the Life, Teachings and Sayings of Famous Philosophers” ).