This paper investigates the differences between ancient Greek and modern ethical naturalism, through the account of the whole classical tradition provided by Cicero in De finibus bonorum et malorum. Ever since Hume’s remarks on the topic, it is usually held that derivations of normative claims from factual claims require some kind of proper justification. It ́s a the presence of such justifications in the Epicurean, Stoic, and Academic-Peripatetic ethical theories (as portrayed in De finibus), and, after a negative conclusion, I (...) argue that we should conceive of this issue within a social-historical perspective: The radical difference between ancient and modern naturalistic ethics is due (in Weber’s terms) to the rationalization processes that generated the modern outlook on nature. (shrink)

This article focuses on the Platonic version of the doctrine of oikeiosis set forth by Piso in Cicero’s De finibus, Book V. The article aims to show that: 1) Cicero’s account, while clearly having Stoic features, is also consistent with the eudaemonistic character of Socrates’ and Plato’s ethics; 2) the replacement of oikeiosis with “assimilation to god”, attested in a passage of the Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s Theaetetus, derives from the intent to remove Epicurean egoistic connotations from Plato’s ethics; according (...) to the Anonymous, the Stoic oikeiosis alone would not suffice to attain this purpose. (shrink)

Brutus’ De virtute, a lost work that had important but overlooked influence on Cicero’s ethical dialogues, is more dependent on Antiochus’ ethics than has been recognized. In reviewing the sources for De virtute, I arrive at a conception of Brutus’ work as a consolation written in a fundamentalist—rather than ecumenical—mode that focalizes its arguments and commonplaces from the perspective of Antiochus’ philosophical system. This conception is supported by the only other testimony for Brutus’ consolatory writing.

This short paper is a critical note of the recent volume on the pseudo-Platonic dialogue Axiochus edited by A. Beghini ([Platone], Assioco. Saggio introduttivo, edizione critica, traduzione e commento, Baden-Baden: Academia Verlag, 2020). This scholar assumes the possibility of attributing the dialogue to Philo of Larissa or his circle. This hypothesis, although well argued in the book, faces some exegetical difficulties concerning the content of the dialogue and the hardly reconstructible philosophy of Philo himself. In this note I will critically (...) discuss the conclusions reached by Beghini in his prestigious book starting from the (alleged) sceptical vein which would be present in the pseudo-Platonic work, whose dating likely presupposes (also) the Epicurean conception of death. (shrink)

In his De philosophia, Varro lists 288 philosophical schools on the highest good before presenting Antiochus’s doctrine as the only true one. One of the particularities of his moral doxography consists in including cynicism which has never been mentioned in the previous moral sources. This paper therefore aims to show that the De philosophia represents a major turning point for the Roman reflection on cynicism. First, Varro defines cynicism as a simple way of life (habitus) and not a doctrine (ratio) (...) so that it could be adopted by all other philosophies. In fact, by ‘reducing’ cynicism to a way of life Varro makes it compatible with his conception of the highest good based on social duties. In that respect, his position on cynicism is opposite to Cicero’s who, in his De officiis, considers cynicism as a dangerous philosophy for Roman values. Finally, Varro uses cynicism as a conceptual tool for thinking, in philosophical terms, one of the most important issues that run through all his work: the relationship between happiness and Ancient Roman simplicity, especially in the context of Roman decadency. For instance, in Varro’s Menippean Satires, Cynics’s destitution partly reminds of the Ancient Romans’ austerity. Therefore, by mentioning cynicism in his moral doxography, Varro gives an original and Roman treatment of the Antiochian inquiry into the concept highest good. (shrink)

A través de la metodología de una selección de teóricos de la “estética de la recepción”, pretendemos analizar la interrelación entre el “horizonte de expectativas” de Marco Tulio Cicerón, con el de los intelectuales ilustrados Montesquieu y Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos. A partir de ahí, pretendemos rellenar los “vacíos”, o los misunderstandings que la lectura ilustrada hace de la ética política ciceroniana en el término concreto de la “virtud” y la “honestidad”. Así pues, desarrollaremos estos conceptos según toda la cosmovisión (...) ciceroniana en contraste con la ilustrada de Montesquieu y Jovellanos, y resaltaremos, de este modo, aquellos puntos de cambio y aquellos de enraizamiento en el pensamiento del propio Cicerón. En de nitiva, responderemos a la pregunta de hasta qué punto el rhetor romano condicionó la concepción política de la virtud y honestidad tanto en el ilustrado francés como en el español, a la vez que, de qué forma estos autores “modernos” readaptaron y transformaron el pensamiento del “clásico” según sus propios “horizontes de expectativas”. (shrink)