What do you think?
Rate this book
Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics
Arranged by topic rather than philosophical school, this study gives a comprehensive account of the principal doctrines of the Stoics, Epicureans and various Sceptical traditions from the death of Alexander the Great to about 200 AD.
172 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
December 1, 2024
fuck this book for being so well written
January 23, 2021
This book was a quick read that has given me a solid foothold in the domain.
October 12, 2018
A good introduction to the ideas and men who developed these philosophies. It does a good job of examining the similarities and differences between the schools and provides ample resources to continue the journey.
Read
April 3, 2025I liked thisssss. Struggled at first but the middle to end is good.
March 10, 2009
Reading this is one more step in my campaign to read difficult books on difficult subjects. I am a newcomer to ancient texts, and it provides a really useful introduction. Despite the title, the book is actually about the Stoics and the Epicureans, with the Sceptics getting hardly a look in. The author usefully divides his topic into chapters called, “How do we know anything?”; “What is reality?”; “What are we?”; “How can I be happy?”; and “What about other people?”. Despite these snappy titles, however, the book has lots of long sentences and subordinate clauses making the book refreshingly more difficult to read than it should be.
The Epicureans thought the universe was made up of atoms, each indivisible, and each separated by a void which allowed them to move about. The atoms are assembled to form compounds, the objects of our ordinary perception. These atoms, being heavy, have a tendency to fall, usually in straight lines, but also – rather mysteriously – with an occasional “swerve”. The Epicureans averred the existence of the gods, but doubted that the gods intervened in human affairs. Living beings too are composed of atoms, as is the animus – the organizing principle of the human being. The anima, or consciousness, is part of the animus.
The Stoics, in contrast, thought everything to be a unified continuum consisting of matter and God, these being respectively the passive and active principles. God, the active principle in the world is identified as fire (or perhaps fire and air). Stoicism, therefore is a species of pantheism. The void exists only outside the finite universe. This universe gradually unfolds, periodically being consumed by fire when the whole world becomes God. Everything that happens, therefore, is the inexorable unfolding of God’s original plan. Human beings too are part of this continuum, the soul of the individual person being the divine spark found throughout the universe.Our soul is thus the divinity within us. Chrysippus divided the human soul into 8 faculties, the five senses, the power of reproduction, the power of speech, and the ruling part, located in the chest. This ruling faculty is rational in the sense that it involves an exercise of judgement. Emotions in particular are judgements; if we fear of desire something, that is because we received an impression that it was bad or good, and choose to assent to that impression. Wrong judgements turn into passions when they gain an impetus of their own. Our actions make a differenc to even though they are predetermined.
Ethics for both schools was about the attainment of happiness. For the Epicureans, happiness consists of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Theirs is a regime of moderation not unlike that of Aristotelian ethics. Epicurus advocated withdrawing from public life and surrounding oneself with like-minded friends. Where possible one should find satisfaction with what one has.
The Stoics, in contrast, thought virtue which they equated with wisdom, was sufficient for happiness. Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, took over from the Cynics the notion that wisdom consisted of living according to nature, modifying this to mean that one should live according to one’s human nature and in accord with the nature of the universe of which we are a part. Thus one should not resist the unfolding of the universe but align oneself with that unfolding. One shoud be indifferent to the way the universe unfolds, though some held (in phrases that recall Mr Rumsfeld) that there were “preferred indifferents” such as wealth and health and “unpreferred undifferents” such as poverty and sickness. Virtue consists of pursuing what is natural even though we may not always attain what we aim at.
All in all, a useful book for somebody, like me, who knows nothing of the topic.
The Epicureans thought the universe was made up of atoms, each indivisible, and each separated by a void which allowed them to move about. The atoms are assembled to form compounds, the objects of our ordinary perception. These atoms, being heavy, have a tendency to fall, usually in straight lines, but also – rather mysteriously – with an occasional “swerve”. The Epicureans averred the existence of the gods, but doubted that the gods intervened in human affairs. Living beings too are composed of atoms, as is the animus – the organizing principle of the human being. The anima, or consciousness, is part of the animus.
The Stoics, in contrast, thought everything to be a unified continuum consisting of matter and God, these being respectively the passive and active principles. God, the active principle in the world is identified as fire (or perhaps fire and air). Stoicism, therefore is a species of pantheism. The void exists only outside the finite universe. This universe gradually unfolds, periodically being consumed by fire when the whole world becomes God. Everything that happens, therefore, is the inexorable unfolding of God’s original plan. Human beings too are part of this continuum, the soul of the individual person being the divine spark found throughout the universe.Our soul is thus the divinity within us. Chrysippus divided the human soul into 8 faculties, the five senses, the power of reproduction, the power of speech, and the ruling part, located in the chest. This ruling faculty is rational in the sense that it involves an exercise of judgement. Emotions in particular are judgements; if we fear of desire something, that is because we received an impression that it was bad or good, and choose to assent to that impression. Wrong judgements turn into passions when they gain an impetus of their own. Our actions make a differenc to even though they are predetermined.
Ethics for both schools was about the attainment of happiness. For the Epicureans, happiness consists of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Theirs is a regime of moderation not unlike that of Aristotelian ethics. Epicurus advocated withdrawing from public life and surrounding oneself with like-minded friends. Where possible one should find satisfaction with what one has.
The Stoics, in contrast, thought virtue which they equated with wisdom, was sufficient for happiness. Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, took over from the Cynics the notion that wisdom consisted of living according to nature, modifying this to mean that one should live according to one’s human nature and in accord with the nature of the universe of which we are a part. Thus one should not resist the unfolding of the universe but align oneself with that unfolding. One shoud be indifferent to the way the universe unfolds, though some held (in phrases that recall Mr Rumsfeld) that there were “preferred indifferents” such as wealth and health and “unpreferred undifferents” such as poverty and sickness. Virtue consists of pursuing what is natural even though we may not always attain what we aim at.
All in all, a useful book for somebody, like me, who knows nothing of the topic.
July 25, 2019
In the beginning of the book, Sharples tells us this is an introduction to someone who essentially knows nothing about the subject. A few chapters in and he's using terminology from propositional logic which I had to learn for about an hour before I could understand what he was describing. It would have been much better if Sharples was better at writing in common prose, rather he overcomplicates a lot of things or is otherwise not very good at explaining.
June 4, 2010
If you're really into stoicism and epicureanism, you're going to love this ;) I picked this up during a philosophy course back in college. Seemed decent.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews