What do you think?
Rate this book
Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Vol 2, Books 6-10
This rich compendium on the lives and doctrines of philosophers ranges over three centuries, from Thales to Epicurus (to whom the whole tenth book is devoted); 45 important figures are portrayed. Diogenes Laertius carefully compiled his information from hundreds of sources and enriches his accounts with numerous quotations.
Diogenes Laertius lived probably in the earlier half of the 3rd century CE, his ancestry and birthplace being unknown. His history, in ten books, is divided unscientifically into two 'Successions' or sections: 'Ionian' from Anaximander to Theophrastus and Chrysippus, including the Socratic schools; 'Italian' from Pythagoras to Epicurus, including the Eleatics and sceptics. It is a very valuable collection of quotations and facts.
The Loeb Classical Library edition of Diogenes Laertius is in two volumes.
Diogenes Laertius lived probably in the earlier half of the 3rd century CE, his ancestry and birthplace being unknown. His history, in ten books, is divided unscientifically into two 'Successions' or sections: 'Ionian' from Anaximander to Theophrastus and Chrysippus, including the Socratic schools; 'Italian' from Pythagoras to Epicurus, including the Eleatics and sceptics. It is a very valuable collection of quotations and facts.
The Loeb Classical Library edition of Diogenes Laertius is in two volumes.
720 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 250
7 people are currently reading
404 people want to read
About the author
Diogenes Laertius
190 books113 followersDiogenes Laertius (Greek: Διογένης Λαέρτιος, lived c. 3rd century CE) was a biographer of the Greek philosophers. Nothing is known about his life, but his surviving Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers is a principal source for the history of Greek philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
April 4, 2018
Diogenes’ Repartees
One day when Plato had invited to his house friends coming from Dionysius, Diogenes trampled upon his carpets and said, “I trample upon Plato’s vainglory.” Plato’s reply was, “How much pride you expose to view, Diogenes, by seeming not to be proud.”
Some one took him into a magnificent house and warned him not to expectorate. He cleared his throat and discharged the phlegm into the man’s face, saying he couldn’t find a meaner receptacle. One day he shouted out for men, and when people collected, hit out at them with his stick, saying, “I called for men, not scoundrels.”
When he was captured and put up for sale, he was asked what he could do. He replied, “Govern men.” And he told the crier to give notice in case anybody wanted to purchase a master for himself. Having been forbidden to sit down, “It makes no difference,” said he, “for in whatever position fishes lie, they still find purchasers.” To Xeniades who purchased him he said, “You must obey me, although I am a slave; for, if a physician or a steersman were in slavery, you would obey him.”
When he was sunning himself in the Craneum, Alexander came and stood over him and said, “Ask of me any boon you like.” To which he replied, “Stand out of my light” … Alexander is reported to have said, “Had I not been Alexander, I should have liked to be Diogenes.”
(Read full review at Nemo's Library)
One day when Plato had invited to his house friends coming from Dionysius, Diogenes trampled upon his carpets and said, “I trample upon Plato’s vainglory.” Plato’s reply was, “How much pride you expose to view, Diogenes, by seeming not to be proud.”
Some one took him into a magnificent house and warned him not to expectorate. He cleared his throat and discharged the phlegm into the man’s face, saying he couldn’t find a meaner receptacle. One day he shouted out for men, and when people collected, hit out at them with his stick, saying, “I called for men, not scoundrels.”
When he was captured and put up for sale, he was asked what he could do. He replied, “Govern men.” And he told the crier to give notice in case anybody wanted to purchase a master for himself. Having been forbidden to sit down, “It makes no difference,” said he, “for in whatever position fishes lie, they still find purchasers.” To Xeniades who purchased him he said, “You must obey me, although I am a slave; for, if a physician or a steersman were in slavery, you would obey him.”
When he was sunning himself in the Craneum, Alexander came and stood over him and said, “Ask of me any boon you like.” To which he replied, “Stand out of my light” … Alexander is reported to have said, “Had I not been Alexander, I should have liked to be Diogenes.”
(Read full review at Nemo's Library)
July 12, 2011
Reviewed 1/26/2007
On the Importance of Gossip
This is yet another Loeb book where I have shamefully lost the companion volume! This is volume II of the 'Lives of Eminent Philosophers' and it has, among many others, sections on Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Zeno, Epicurus and Diogenes - this last is the philosopher-cynic, not our author Diogenes Laertius, who is really little more than a sophisticated gossip. But actually, that is more than a little harsh, this collection of anecdotes is not only fun but it gives us information that is often only mentioned by our author, D. Laertius. Unfortunately, without confirmation, much of what he testifies to is either not accepted or, at the very least, open to question. But for those of us interested in the philosophers, and the relations between them and their ways of philosophizing, this book really is both educational and entertaining.
For instance, on Diogenes (the philosopher-cynic, not our author, the gossip) we read, "Being reproached with begging when Plato did not beg, 'Oh yes,' says he [that is, Diogenes the Philosopher says] 'he does, but when he does so -He holds his head down close, that none may hear.'" It seems that many of the first generation of 'Socratics' were contemptuous of what might be best described as Plato's (ahem) 'kowtowing' to popular opinion. 'Begging' here means (probably) Plato's attempt to influence the City and its Nomos. For many of the other Socratics there was on the one hand Philosophy and there was on the other hand Law (Nomos) and never the two shall meet. But Plato, through his cautious writing, intends to 'influence' the City in order to make it more philosophical - or, at the very least, more friendly to philosophy. Recall that Kojeve once remarked (something to the effect) that once Socrates set foot and began speaking in the marketplace modernity itself becomes inevitable. We always need to add that this supposed 'inevitability' vanishes entirely if Plato chose to live like the philosopher Diogenes did...
But the squabbles and banter between the Socratics Diogenes and Plato can be quite interesting:
"Others tell us that what Diogenes said was, 'I trample upon the pride of Plato,' who retorted, 'Yes Diogenes, with pride of another sort'."
To Plato, who had given him more than he asked, Diogenes said, "So, it seems, you neither give as you are asked nor answer as you are questioned."
"As Plato was conversing about Ideas using the nouns 'tablehood' and 'cuphood,' he said, 'Table and cup I see; but your tablehood and cuphood, Plato, I can nowise see.' 'That's readily accounted for,' said Plato, 'for you have the eyes to see the visible table and cup; but not the understanding by which ideal tablehood and cuphood are discerned'."
So we see that Diogenes is not ready to follow Plato into his Ideal world. Diogenes questions, as he did obliquely in our first quote above, the 'honesty' of Plato. It seems that Plato is 'purposefully' unclear. And keep in mind that it isn't only Diogenes who thinks so. Epicurus goes so far as to refer to Plato's school as 'the toadies of Dionysius'!
Nietzsche has a wonderful comment on this remark of Epicurus that might be apposite here:
How malicious philosophers can be! I know of nothing more venomous than the joke Epicurus permitted himself against Plato and the Platonists; he called them Dionysiokolakes. That means literally - and this is the foreground meaning -"flatterers of Dionysius," in other words, tyrant's baggage and lickspittles; but addition to this he also wants to say, "they are all actors, there is nothing genuine about them" (for Dionysiokolax was a popular name for an actor). And the latter is really the malice that Epicurus aimed at Plato: he was peeved by the grandiose manner, the mise en scene at which Plato and his disciples were so expert - at which Epicurus was not an expert - he, that old schoolmaster from Samos who sat, hidden away, in his little garden at Athens and wrote three hundred books - who knows? perhaps from rage and ambition against Plato? It took a hundred years until Greece found out who this garden god, Epicurus, had been - did they find out? (Beyond Good & Evil, Section 7)
So you see, the 'malicious' little joke by Epicurus that D. Laertius mentions in his 'Lives' (and the pride that aimed the remark) were worth a comment by a philosopher of the stature of Nietzsche. The joke, btw, is that Plato flattered the powerful by 'acting' (i.e., writing) in a manner they would consider both flattering and wise; and thus, hopefully, influencing the behavior of the powerful by the wise. It is in this manner that the few dozen dialogues of Plato began a tendency in Philosophy that results in, as Kojeve said, our 'enlightened' modernity.
You see what clues are available even in the gossip that has grown up around the philosophers! One stands in awe of how different the world would be if Plato had followed Diogenes and lived like a dog...
On the Importance of Gossip
This is yet another Loeb book where I have shamefully lost the companion volume! This is volume II of the 'Lives of Eminent Philosophers' and it has, among many others, sections on Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Zeno, Epicurus and Diogenes - this last is the philosopher-cynic, not our author Diogenes Laertius, who is really little more than a sophisticated gossip. But actually, that is more than a little harsh, this collection of anecdotes is not only fun but it gives us information that is often only mentioned by our author, D. Laertius. Unfortunately, without confirmation, much of what he testifies to is either not accepted or, at the very least, open to question. But for those of us interested in the philosophers, and the relations between them and their ways of philosophizing, this book really is both educational and entertaining.
For instance, on Diogenes (the philosopher-cynic, not our author, the gossip) we read, "Being reproached with begging when Plato did not beg, 'Oh yes,' says he [that is, Diogenes the Philosopher says] 'he does, but when he does so -He holds his head down close, that none may hear.'" It seems that many of the first generation of 'Socratics' were contemptuous of what might be best described as Plato's (ahem) 'kowtowing' to popular opinion. 'Begging' here means (probably) Plato's attempt to influence the City and its Nomos. For many of the other Socratics there was on the one hand Philosophy and there was on the other hand Law (Nomos) and never the two shall meet. But Plato, through his cautious writing, intends to 'influence' the City in order to make it more philosophical - or, at the very least, more friendly to philosophy. Recall that Kojeve once remarked (something to the effect) that once Socrates set foot and began speaking in the marketplace modernity itself becomes inevitable. We always need to add that this supposed 'inevitability' vanishes entirely if Plato chose to live like the philosopher Diogenes did...
But the squabbles and banter between the Socratics Diogenes and Plato can be quite interesting:
"Others tell us that what Diogenes said was, 'I trample upon the pride of Plato,' who retorted, 'Yes Diogenes, with pride of another sort'."
To Plato, who had given him more than he asked, Diogenes said, "So, it seems, you neither give as you are asked nor answer as you are questioned."
"As Plato was conversing about Ideas using the nouns 'tablehood' and 'cuphood,' he said, 'Table and cup I see; but your tablehood and cuphood, Plato, I can nowise see.' 'That's readily accounted for,' said Plato, 'for you have the eyes to see the visible table and cup; but not the understanding by which ideal tablehood and cuphood are discerned'."
So we see that Diogenes is not ready to follow Plato into his Ideal world. Diogenes questions, as he did obliquely in our first quote above, the 'honesty' of Plato. It seems that Plato is 'purposefully' unclear. And keep in mind that it isn't only Diogenes who thinks so. Epicurus goes so far as to refer to Plato's school as 'the toadies of Dionysius'!
Nietzsche has a wonderful comment on this remark of Epicurus that might be apposite here:
How malicious philosophers can be! I know of nothing more venomous than the joke Epicurus permitted himself against Plato and the Platonists; he called them Dionysiokolakes. That means literally - and this is the foreground meaning -"flatterers of Dionysius," in other words, tyrant's baggage and lickspittles; but addition to this he also wants to say, "they are all actors, there is nothing genuine about them" (for Dionysiokolax was a popular name for an actor). And the latter is really the malice that Epicurus aimed at Plato: he was peeved by the grandiose manner, the mise en scene at which Plato and his disciples were so expert - at which Epicurus was not an expert - he, that old schoolmaster from Samos who sat, hidden away, in his little garden at Athens and wrote three hundred books - who knows? perhaps from rage and ambition against Plato? It took a hundred years until Greece found out who this garden god, Epicurus, had been - did they find out? (Beyond Good & Evil, Section 7)
So you see, the 'malicious' little joke by Epicurus that D. Laertius mentions in his 'Lives' (and the pride that aimed the remark) were worth a comment by a philosopher of the stature of Nietzsche. The joke, btw, is that Plato flattered the powerful by 'acting' (i.e., writing) in a manner they would consider both flattering and wise; and thus, hopefully, influencing the behavior of the powerful by the wise. It is in this manner that the few dozen dialogues of Plato began a tendency in Philosophy that results in, as Kojeve said, our 'enlightened' modernity.
You see what clues are available even in the gossip that has grown up around the philosophers! One stands in awe of how different the world would be if Plato had followed Diogenes and lived like a dog...
January 28, 2012
Both volumes of Diogenes Laertius' Lives of the Eminent Philosophers provide excellent source material for students of the Hellenistic Philosophers. While less helpful for Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, Diogenes offers a treasure trove of doctrines, letters, and biographical anecdotes on Epicurus, the early Stoics, Diogenes the Cynic, and a host of others. For any student of Hellenistic philosophy--required reading.
January 22, 2013
I read the two volumes of the Loeb edition of Diogenes Laertius upon entering Loyola University Chicago's MA/PhD program in philosophy. Laertius is chatty and anecdotal, these being more pictures of philosophers than expositions of philosophies.
January 16, 2016
I learned so much from this work. I'm not sure that, before reading this, I truly understood what differentiated the Cynic, Stoic, Skeptic, Pythagorean, Epicurian, Platonic, Peripatetic, and many other schools.
June 29, 2014
Here are the ancient philosophers. Their biographies encapsulates their positions on reality. Wonderful read, but should not be used as a shortcut to reading their works.
September 4, 2015
Some background certainly will aid and augment enjoyment and the benefits of reading this early textbook of the first philosophers and schools. But, hey, dive in.
October 28, 2023
Comme le premier tome de cette collection, celui-ci peut apparaître également un peu désordonné avec des biographies et doctrines exposées avec plus ou moins de rigueur et d’intérêt par l’auteur. La présentation des cyniques en particulier est avant tout un recueil d’anecdotes et de « bons mots » de la part de ces personnages hauts en couleurs. C’est également un peu le cas des pythagoriciens.
Les parties sur les stoïques et les sceptiques sont en revanche plus développées et, même confuses, permettent de mieux entrevoir la destination de l’auteur qui est d’exposer pour finir la doctrine épicurienne qui apparaît comme couronnement des recherches des philosophes sur la nature, le logos et la morale. Fondée sur un matérialisme appuyé sur un doute raisonnable des indications données par l’expérience, cette doctrine est présentée par Diogène Laërce comme celle permettant de « vivre comme l’égal des dieux », c’est-à-dire à l’abri des craintes inspirées par les superstitions et des besoins superflus inspirés par les mauvaises passions.
C’est à Diogène Laërce que l’on doit la conservation des trois lettres (à Hérodote, à Pythoclès et à Ménécée) résumant la doctrine d’Epicure, mais aussi la citations de nombreux fragments et ouvrages qui sans lui seraient totalement oubliés. L’abondance de la documentation citée par l’auteur permet de constater et déplorer l’immense perte de la littérature antique provoquée par les invasions barbares. En creux, on remarque également que ce qui a survécu (principalement la philosophie idéaliste de Platon et Aristote) ne prend pas tellement d’espace dans le panorama de la philosophie antique donné par Diogène Laërce.
Les parties sur les stoïques et les sceptiques sont en revanche plus développées et, même confuses, permettent de mieux entrevoir la destination de l’auteur qui est d’exposer pour finir la doctrine épicurienne qui apparaît comme couronnement des recherches des philosophes sur la nature, le logos et la morale. Fondée sur un matérialisme appuyé sur un doute raisonnable des indications données par l’expérience, cette doctrine est présentée par Diogène Laërce comme celle permettant de « vivre comme l’égal des dieux », c’est-à-dire à l’abri des craintes inspirées par les superstitions et des besoins superflus inspirés par les mauvaises passions.
C’est à Diogène Laërce que l’on doit la conservation des trois lettres (à Hérodote, à Pythoclès et à Ménécée) résumant la doctrine d’Epicure, mais aussi la citations de nombreux fragments et ouvrages qui sans lui seraient totalement oubliés. L’abondance de la documentation citée par l’auteur permet de constater et déplorer l’immense perte de la littérature antique provoquée par les invasions barbares. En creux, on remarque également que ce qui a survécu (principalement la philosophie idéaliste de Platon et Aristote) ne prend pas tellement d’espace dans le panorama de la philosophie antique donné par Diogène Laërce.
October 24, 2017
A very interesting read that made me aware of many things I would never have known otherwise - such as how Zeno may have died by stubbing his toe and then holding his breath. A rather long piece on Epicurus shattered my previous misconception of the man and his ideas (although the book suggested that he may have also stolen most of his ideas).
I enjoyed reading this book and can never get enough of the beautiful Loeb book editions which could make anyone's heart melt.
I enjoyed reading this book and can never get enough of the beautiful Loeb book editions which could make anyone's heart melt.
December 28, 2020
Came for the Diogenes. Stayed for the Antisthenes, Pythoagoras, Parminedes, and Epicurus.
December 25, 2020
This book has made me an absolute Diogenes the Cynic's fanboy. My god, he's such a badass during his time. Of all the "Eminent Philosophers" listed in all 10 books. He's my favourite! He doesn't care about what's done to him at all! He carries on with his badass character regardless of the abuse he went through.
My favourite moment was when people was beating Diogenes and then asked him why didn't he do anything about it, he said, "If I was kicked by a donkey, would I name the animal in a suit at court?"
lolololol!!
My favourite moment was when people was beating Diogenes and then asked him why didn't he do anything about it, he said, "If I was kicked by a donkey, would I name the animal in a suit at court?"
lolololol!!
July 21, 2011
Y'a un coté un peu catalogue, mais on voit quand même les liens qu'ils ont les uns avec les autres. Les anecdotes sont édifiantes.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews