From: Lectures on Greek Philosophy — Volume 1: THE CYRENAIC, CYNIC, AND MEGARIC SCHOOLS
This ebook edition has been proofed and corrected for errors and compiled to be read with without errors!
***
an excerpt:
15. The founder of the Megaric sect was Euclid, a philosopher whom you must not confound with the mathematician of that name. On the death of Socrates, in the year 399 B.C., Euclid retired to his birthplace, Megara, a town distant about twenty-six miles from Athens; and here he established the Megaric school of philosophy. The chief characteristic of this school was, that it set forth " the good " as the main category, the leading universal in all things. Whatever was real was good. The Megaric philosophers derived their doctrines from the Eleatics no less than from Socrates. What the Eleatics called Being, that, namely, which must be thought of in all that is thought, the Megarics called the good. Everything is good in so far as it is. Evil is mere defect, want, or privation. Evil is a mere negation; the good alone is positive. Whatever truly exists, or is thought of as truly existing, must exist as good, and must be thought of as good. The good, then, is the common quality, the element of agreement in all things which exist; it is the supreme category of the universe. The Megaric school was likewise famous for the logical puzzles with which it perplexed itself and its neighbours. One of these was called the Sorites, or the heap. Is one grain of corn a heap? it is asked. No. Are two grains? No. Three grains? No. And so on, until the person interrogated either says now there is a heap, in which case one grain will have made the difference between a heap and no heap, which seems to be absurd; or else he will say that no number of grains make up a heap, which seems still more absurd. Another puzzle was called Cornutus, or the horned. You have that which you have not lost, have you not? Yes. Then you have horns, for you have not lost horns.
16. In the novel of 'Don Quixote,' a Megaric puzzle, or a case which may be regarded as such, is brought under our notice. Sancho Panza, having been appointed governor of the island of Baratria, has to deal with many perplexing law cases when seated on the bench, and among others with the following: There was a bridge over a river in the neighbourhood, which a certain rich man had built for the benefit of travellers. and close by it there stood a gallows. The condition on which people were allowed to cross the bridge was, that they should speak the truth in regard to whither they were going. If they lied, they were to be tied up to the gibbet. Now on one occasion a traveller came to the bridge, and on being asked whither he was going, he replied that he was going to be hanged on that gallows. This answer threw the toll-keepers into great perplexity. For supposing that they hanged the man, in that case he had spoken the truth, and it was their duty to have let him pass. But again, supposing that they let him pass, in that case he had told a lie, and it was their duty to have hanged him. In these perplexing circumstances they appealed to the wisdom of the governor Sancho, and he pronounced the judicious verdict, that in so doubtful and difficult a case it was better to lean to the side of mercy, and allow the traveller to go free, even at the expense of logical consistency.
17. To say a word in conclusion, and by way of summing up these three systems. I remarked at the outset that Socrates had left the conception of the good very vague and indeterminate. He had strong utilitarian, even eudaimonistic, tendencies. But it is equally true that he strove to promulgate a profounder morality than that of mere utility or eudaimonism. He wavered, however, between the two; at one time he appears as a mere utilitarian, who makes happiness all in all; at another time he inculcates a higher morality, the aim of which is rather the perfection than the happiness of our nature. Hence two paths of moral inquiry were opened up to his disciples. The Cyrenaics, led by Aristippus, entered on the one of these paths, and proclaimed happiness, in the sense of mere pleasure, as the summum bonum, or ultimate good, for man; while the Cynics, led by Antisthenes, maintained that virtue, or the perfecting of his nature, was man's true end, and that this end was to be attained only by repressing his desires and curtailing his wants within the smallest possible limits. The Megarics, again, left the Socratic conception of the good in its original indetermination; or, at any rate, the only explanation of it which they suggested was, that the good in itself and true Being in itself were identical—a proposition not without value and significance, when we consider that man, in fostering his true being, is promoting his true good, and that he attains to what is truly his good just in proportion as he attains to what is truly his being. So much, then, in regard to the imperfect Socraticists, the Cyrenaic, the Cynic, and the Megaric schools of philosophy.
1112373190
***
an excerpt:
15. The founder of the Megaric sect was Euclid, a philosopher whom you must not confound with the mathematician of that name. On the death of Socrates, in the year 399 B.C., Euclid retired to his birthplace, Megara, a town distant about twenty-six miles from Athens; and here he established the Megaric school of philosophy. The chief characteristic of this school was, that it set forth " the good " as the main category, the leading universal in all things. Whatever was real was good. The Megaric philosophers derived their doctrines from the Eleatics no less than from Socrates. What the Eleatics called Being, that, namely, which must be thought of in all that is thought, the Megarics called the good. Everything is good in so far as it is. Evil is mere defect, want, or privation. Evil is a mere negation; the good alone is positive. Whatever truly exists, or is thought of as truly existing, must exist as good, and must be thought of as good. The good, then, is the common quality, the element of agreement in all things which exist; it is the supreme category of the universe. The Megaric school was likewise famous for the logical puzzles with which it perplexed itself and its neighbours. One of these was called the Sorites, or the heap. Is one grain of corn a heap? it is asked. No. Are two grains? No. Three grains? No. And so on, until the person interrogated either says now there is a heap, in which case one grain will have made the difference between a heap and no heap, which seems to be absurd; or else he will say that no number of grains make up a heap, which seems still more absurd. Another puzzle was called Cornutus, or the horned. You have that which you have not lost, have you not? Yes. Then you have horns, for you have not lost horns.
16. In the novel of 'Don Quixote,' a Megaric puzzle, or a case which may be regarded as such, is brought under our notice. Sancho Panza, having been appointed governor of the island of Baratria, has to deal with many perplexing law cases when seated on the bench, and among others with the following: There was a bridge over a river in the neighbourhood, which a certain rich man had built for the benefit of travellers. and close by it there stood a gallows. The condition on which people were allowed to cross the bridge was, that they should speak the truth in regard to whither they were going. If they lied, they were to be tied up to the gibbet. Now on one occasion a traveller came to the bridge, and on being asked whither he was going, he replied that he was going to be hanged on that gallows. This answer threw the toll-keepers into great perplexity. For supposing that they hanged the man, in that case he had spoken the truth, and it was their duty to have let him pass. But again, supposing that they let him pass, in that case he had told a lie, and it was their duty to have hanged him. In these perplexing circumstances they appealed to the wisdom of the governor Sancho, and he pronounced the judicious verdict, that in so doubtful and difficult a case it was better to lean to the side of mercy, and allow the traveller to go free, even at the expense of logical consistency.
17. To say a word in conclusion, and by way of summing up these three systems. I remarked at the outset that Socrates had left the conception of the good very vague and indeterminate. He had strong utilitarian, even eudaimonistic, tendencies. But it is equally true that he strove to promulgate a profounder morality than that of mere utility or eudaimonism. He wavered, however, between the two; at one time he appears as a mere utilitarian, who makes happiness all in all; at another time he inculcates a higher morality, the aim of which is rather the perfection than the happiness of our nature. Hence two paths of moral inquiry were opened up to his disciples. The Cyrenaics, led by Aristippus, entered on the one of these paths, and proclaimed happiness, in the sense of mere pleasure, as the summum bonum, or ultimate good, for man; while the Cynics, led by Antisthenes, maintained that virtue, or the perfecting of his nature, was man's true end, and that this end was to be attained only by repressing his desires and curtailing his wants within the smallest possible limits. The Megarics, again, left the Socratic conception of the good in its original indetermination; or, at any rate, the only explanation of it which they suggested was, that the good in itself and true Being in itself were identical—a proposition not without value and significance, when we consider that man, in fostering his true being, is promoting his true good, and that he attains to what is truly his good just in proportion as he attains to what is truly his being. So much, then, in regard to the imperfect Socraticists, the Cyrenaic, the Cynic, and the Megaric schools of philosophy.
From: Lectures on Greek Philosophy — Volume 1: THE CYRENAIC, CYNIC, AND MEGARIC SCHOOLS
This ebook edition has been proofed and corrected for errors and compiled to be read with without errors!
***
an excerpt:
15. The founder of the Megaric sect was Euclid, a philosopher whom you must not confound with the mathematician of that name. On the death of Socrates, in the year 399 B.C., Euclid retired to his birthplace, Megara, a town distant about twenty-six miles from Athens; and here he established the Megaric school of philosophy. The chief characteristic of this school was, that it set forth " the good " as the main category, the leading universal in all things. Whatever was real was good. The Megaric philosophers derived their doctrines from the Eleatics no less than from Socrates. What the Eleatics called Being, that, namely, which must be thought of in all that is thought, the Megarics called the good. Everything is good in so far as it is. Evil is mere defect, want, or privation. Evil is a mere negation; the good alone is positive. Whatever truly exists, or is thought of as truly existing, must exist as good, and must be thought of as good. The good, then, is the common quality, the element of agreement in all things which exist; it is the supreme category of the universe. The Megaric school was likewise famous for the logical puzzles with which it perplexed itself and its neighbours. One of these was called the Sorites, or the heap. Is one grain of corn a heap? it is asked. No. Are two grains? No. Three grains? No. And so on, until the person interrogated either says now there is a heap, in which case one grain will have made the difference between a heap and no heap, which seems to be absurd; or else he will say that no number of grains make up a heap, which seems still more absurd. Another puzzle was called Cornutus, or the horned. You have that which you have not lost, have you not? Yes. Then you have horns, for you have not lost horns.
16. In the novel of 'Don Quixote,' a Megaric puzzle, or a case which may be regarded as such, is brought under our notice. Sancho Panza, having been appointed governor of the island of Baratria, has to deal with many perplexing law cases when seated on the bench, and among others with the following: There was a bridge over a river in the neighbourhood, which a certain rich man had built for the benefit of travellers. and close by it there stood a gallows. The condition on which people were allowed to cross the bridge was, that they should speak the truth in regard to whither they were going. If they lied, they were to be tied up to the gibbet. Now on one occasion a traveller came to the bridge, and on being asked whither he was going, he replied that he was going to be hanged on that gallows. This answer threw the toll-keepers into great perplexity. For supposing that they hanged the man, in that case he had spoken the truth, and it was their duty to have let him pass. But again, supposing that they let him pass, in that case he had told a lie, and it was their duty to have hanged him. In these perplexing circumstances they appealed to the wisdom of the governor Sancho, and he pronounced the judicious verdict, that in so doubtful and difficult a case it was better to lean to the side of mercy, and allow the traveller to go free, even at the expense of logical consistency.
17. To say a word in conclusion, and by way of summing up these three systems. I remarked at the outset that Socrates had left the conception of the good very vague and indeterminate. He had strong utilitarian, even eudaimonistic, tendencies. But it is equally true that he strove to promulgate a profounder morality than that of mere utility or eudaimonism. He wavered, however, between the two; at one time he appears as a mere utilitarian, who makes happiness all in all; at another time he inculcates a higher morality, the aim of which is rather the perfection than the happiness of our nature. Hence two paths of moral inquiry were opened up to his disciples. The Cyrenaics, led by Aristippus, entered on the one of these paths, and proclaimed happiness, in the sense of mere pleasure, as the summum bonum, or ultimate good, for man; while the Cynics, led by Antisthenes, maintained that virtue, or the perfecting of his nature, was man's true end, and that this end was to be attained only by repressing his desires and curtailing his wants within the smallest possible limits. The Megarics, again, left the Socratic conception of the good in its original indetermination; or, at any rate, the only explanation of it which they suggested was, that the good in itself and true Being in itself were identical—a proposition not without value and significance, when we consider that man, in fostering his true being, is promoting his true good, and that he attains to what is truly his good just in proportion as he attains to what is truly his being. So much, then, in regard to the imperfect Socraticists, the Cyrenaic, the Cynic, and the Megaric schools of philosophy.
***
an excerpt:
15. The founder of the Megaric sect was Euclid, a philosopher whom you must not confound with the mathematician of that name. On the death of Socrates, in the year 399 B.C., Euclid retired to his birthplace, Megara, a town distant about twenty-six miles from Athens; and here he established the Megaric school of philosophy. The chief characteristic of this school was, that it set forth " the good " as the main category, the leading universal in all things. Whatever was real was good. The Megaric philosophers derived their doctrines from the Eleatics no less than from Socrates. What the Eleatics called Being, that, namely, which must be thought of in all that is thought, the Megarics called the good. Everything is good in so far as it is. Evil is mere defect, want, or privation. Evil is a mere negation; the good alone is positive. Whatever truly exists, or is thought of as truly existing, must exist as good, and must be thought of as good. The good, then, is the common quality, the element of agreement in all things which exist; it is the supreme category of the universe. The Megaric school was likewise famous for the logical puzzles with which it perplexed itself and its neighbours. One of these was called the Sorites, or the heap. Is one grain of corn a heap? it is asked. No. Are two grains? No. Three grains? No. And so on, until the person interrogated either says now there is a heap, in which case one grain will have made the difference between a heap and no heap, which seems to be absurd; or else he will say that no number of grains make up a heap, which seems still more absurd. Another puzzle was called Cornutus, or the horned. You have that which you have not lost, have you not? Yes. Then you have horns, for you have not lost horns.
16. In the novel of 'Don Quixote,' a Megaric puzzle, or a case which may be regarded as such, is brought under our notice. Sancho Panza, having been appointed governor of the island of Baratria, has to deal with many perplexing law cases when seated on the bench, and among others with the following: There was a bridge over a river in the neighbourhood, which a certain rich man had built for the benefit of travellers. and close by it there stood a gallows. The condition on which people were allowed to cross the bridge was, that they should speak the truth in regard to whither they were going. If they lied, they were to be tied up to the gibbet. Now on one occasion a traveller came to the bridge, and on being asked whither he was going, he replied that he was going to be hanged on that gallows. This answer threw the toll-keepers into great perplexity. For supposing that they hanged the man, in that case he had spoken the truth, and it was their duty to have let him pass. But again, supposing that they let him pass, in that case he had told a lie, and it was their duty to have hanged him. In these perplexing circumstances they appealed to the wisdom of the governor Sancho, and he pronounced the judicious verdict, that in so doubtful and difficult a case it was better to lean to the side of mercy, and allow the traveller to go free, even at the expense of logical consistency.
17. To say a word in conclusion, and by way of summing up these three systems. I remarked at the outset that Socrates had left the conception of the good very vague and indeterminate. He had strong utilitarian, even eudaimonistic, tendencies. But it is equally true that he strove to promulgate a profounder morality than that of mere utility or eudaimonism. He wavered, however, between the two; at one time he appears as a mere utilitarian, who makes happiness all in all; at another time he inculcates a higher morality, the aim of which is rather the perfection than the happiness of our nature. Hence two paths of moral inquiry were opened up to his disciples. The Cyrenaics, led by Aristippus, entered on the one of these paths, and proclaimed happiness, in the sense of mere pleasure, as the summum bonum, or ultimate good, for man; while the Cynics, led by Antisthenes, maintained that virtue, or the perfecting of his nature, was man's true end, and that this end was to be attained only by repressing his desires and curtailing his wants within the smallest possible limits. The Megarics, again, left the Socratic conception of the good in its original indetermination; or, at any rate, the only explanation of it which they suggested was, that the good in itself and true Being in itself were identical—a proposition not without value and significance, when we consider that man, in fostering his true being, is promoting his true good, and that he attains to what is truly his good just in proportion as he attains to what is truly his being. So much, then, in regard to the imperfect Socraticists, the Cyrenaic, the Cynic, and the Megaric schools of philosophy.
0.99
In Stock
5
1
From: Lectures on Greek Philosophy — Volume 1: THE CYRENAIC, CYNIC, AND MEGARIC SCHOOLS
From: Lectures on Greek Philosophy — Volume 1: THE CYRENAIC, CYNIC, AND MEGARIC SCHOOLS
eBook
$0.99
Related collections and offers
0.99
In Stock
Product Details
| BN ID: | 2940011904387 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | OGB |
| Publication date: | 12/08/2010 |
| Series: | Lectures on Greek Philosophy , #1 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| File size: | 345 KB |
From the B&N Reads Blog