Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ  permalink

Stoicism in Rome...

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by SafricanAndy (U7173046) on Thursday, 19th July 2007

  Why did the Stoic brand of philosophy take hold in Rome (chiefly amongst the aristocracy), eventually culminating in the person of the emperor himself (Marcus Aurelius), instead of, say, Epicureanism? What were the factors (political/cultural) involved in its spread and prevalence?
  
  

  Link to this forum: Stoicism in Rome...

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 19th July 2007

  i would say that the stoic concpets of duty wouldve been immensely attractive to rome, which could easily meld these into its rather aggressive nature-you could do your duty to rome etc...
  
  as opposed to epicureanism in the search of pleasures (although moderated, as with the personal traits of virtue theory) it is an inherently selfish nature. essentially in epicurean terms rome could sod itself-i wanted my bottle of wine, let the slaves whine about those gauls!

  Link to this forum: Stoicism in Rome...

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by scamander (U870981) on Friday, 20th July 2007

  This is a difficult one to handle, the danger is that you can be drawn into making a wide array of generalisations on the point.
  
  From a practical point of view the Patrician class were clued up on how to express wealth and over-indulgence wasn't a clever notion. You could be affluent but vented in the right way as opposed to lavish parties which served to exclude the Plebs rather than involve them. Hence the lavish expenditure needed to parallel or involve the same financial attention paid to the Plebs. Sure, have a luxurious party but make sure that games are held in tandem.
  
  The Plebs were pretty crucial to any keen Patrician and it's this relationship which is the crux of the discussion. Epicureanism would serve to isolate the Patrician whereas stoicism meant that extreme wasn't served. Stoicism allowed the rich to pretend to be the poor in a safe context, it's no coincidence that flamboyance was seen as something "other" to the traditional Roman virtues. This had other practical applications, generals who dissolved the difference in treatment between the infantryman and general would see that he could nourish his relationship with his men.
  
  Apologies for the scattered reply but this is something which needs an essay in reply - I hope some of this seems workable.

  Link to this forum: Stoicism in Rome...

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by copperworks (U5523776) on Sunday, 22nd July 2007

  What a coincidence.
  I've just finished reading Lucretius 'On the nature of things' (English translation). What a brilliant work! This could almost be called proto-science! He describes a primitive theory of atoms and appears to be grasping for an embryonic version of evolution. Even where he is obviously wrong e.g. that the sun goes around the earth and that thunder is made by clouds you can see him attempting to apply rational thought. He eschews any notion of devine intervention. (He does not appear to be an athiest, but rather thinks that the Gods are indifferent or impotent and best left out of the equation all together.)
  His account of primitive pre-civilised mankind read like a modern days children school book. He describes them as cave-dwellers and speculates about the discovery and first use of fire.
  I gather that Lucretius was a strong adherent to Epicureanism. This ai one of the few books by ancient authors that I couldn't put down.
  His motto to 'Live modestly with tranquility' surely belies the pejorative mis-interpretations of Epicureanism widely held today.
  

  Link to this forum: Stoicism in Rome...

  Report message4

Back to top