Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| That Varro Has Made Out that Two Hundred and Eighty-Eight Different Sects of Philosophy Might Be Formed by the Various Opinions Regarding the Supreme Good. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Chapter 1.—That Varro Has Made
Out that Two Hundred and Eighty-Eight Different Sects of Philosophy
Might Be Formed by the Various Opinions Regarding the Supreme
Good.
As I see
that I have still to discuss the fit destinies of the two cities,
the earthly and the heavenly, I must first explain, so far as the
limits of this work allow me, the reasonings by which men have
attempted to make for themselves a happiness in this unhappy life,
in order that it may be evident, not only from divine authority,
but also from such reasons as can be adduced to unbelievers, how
the empty dreams of the philosophers differ from the hope which God
gives to us, and from the substantial fulfillment of it which He
will give us as our blessedness. Philosophers have expressed a
great variety of diverse opinions regarding the ends of goods and
of evils, and this question they have eagerly canvassed, that they
might, if possible, discover what makes a man happy. For the end
of our good is that for the sake of which other things are to be
desired, while it is to be desired for its own sake; and the end of
evil is that on account of which other things are to be shunned,
while it is avoided on its own account. Thus, by the end of
good, we at present mean, not that by which good is destroyed,
so that it no longer exists, but that by which it is finished, so
that it becomes complete; and by the end of evil we mean,
not that which abolishes it, but that which completes its
development. These two ends, therefore, are the supreme good and
the supreme evil; and, as I have said, those who have in this vain
life professed the study of wisdom have been at great pains to
discover these ends, and to obtain the supreme good and avoid the
supreme evil in this life. And although they erred in a variety
of ways, yet natural insight has prevented them from wandering from
the truth so far that they have not placed the supreme good and
evil, some in the soul, some in the body, and some in both. From
this tripartite distribution of the sects of philosophy, Marcus
Varro, in his book De Philosophia,1259 has drawn so large a variety of
opinions, that, by a subtle and minute analysis of distinctions, he
numbers without difficulty as many as 288 sects,—not that these
have actually existed, but sects which are possible.
To illustrate briefly what he
means, I must begin with his own introductory statement in the
above-mentioned book, that there are four things which men desire,
as it were by nature without a master, without the help of any
instruction, without industry or the art of living which is called
virtue, and which is certainly learned:1260 either pleasure, which is an
agreeable stirring of the bodily sense; or repose, which excludes
every bodily inconvenience; or both these, which Epicurus calls by
the one name, pleasure; or the primary objects
of nature,1261
1261 The prima naturæ,
or πρῶτα κατὰ
φύσιν of the
Stoics. | which
comprehend the things already named and other things, either
bodily, such as health, and safety, and integrity of the members,
or spiritual, such as the greater and less mental gifts that are
found in men. Now these four things—pleasure, repose, the two
combined, and the primary objects of nature—exist in us in such
sort that we must either desire virtue on their account, or them
for the sake of virtue, or both for their own sake; and
consequently there arise from this distinction twelve sects, for
each is by this consideration tripled. I will illustrate this in
one instance, and, having done so, it will not be difficult to
understand the others. According, then, as bodily pleasure is
subjected, preferred, or united to virtue, there are three sects.
It is subjected to virtue when it is chosen as subservient to
virtue. Thus it is a duty of virtue to live for one’s country,
and for its sake to beget children, neither of which can be done
without bodily pleasure. For there is pleasure in eating and
drinking, pleasure also in sexual intercourse. But when it is
preferred to virtue, it is desired for its own sake, and virtue is
chosen only for its sake, and to effect nothing else than the
attainment or preservation of bodily pleasure. And this, indeed,
is to make life hideous; for where virtue is the slave of pleasure
it no longer deserves the name of virtue. Yet even this
disgraceful distortion has found some philosophers to patronize and
defend it. Then virtue is united to pleasure when neither is
desired for the other’s sake, but both for their own. And
therefore, as pleasure, according as it is subjected, preferred, or
united to virtue, makes three sects, so also do repose, pleasure
and repose combined, and the prime natural blessings, make their
three sects each. For as men’s opinions vary, and these four
things are sometimes subjected, sometimes preferred, and sometimes
united to virtue, there are produced twelve sects. But this
number again is doubled by the addition of one difference, viz.,
the social life; for whoever attaches himself to any of these sects
does so either for his own sake alone, or for the sake of a
companion, for whom he ought to wish what he desires for himself.
And thus there will be twelve of those who think some one of these
opinions should be held for their own sakes, and other twelve who
decide that they ought to follow this or that philosophy not for
their own sakes only, but also for the sake of others whose good
they desire as their own. These twenty-four sects again are
doubled, and become forty-eight by adding a difference taken from
the New Academy. For each of these four and twenty sects can hold
and defend their opinion as certain, as the Stoics defended the
position that the supreme good of man consisted solely in virtue;
or they can be held as probable, but not certain, as the New
Academics did. There are, therefore, twenty-four who hold their
philosophy as certainly true, other twenty-four who hold their
opinions as probable, but not certain. Again, as each person who
attaches himself to any of these sects may adopt the mode of life
either of the Cynics or of the other philosophers, this distinction
will double the number, and so make ninety-six sects. Then,
lastly, as each of these sects may be adhered to either by men who
love a life of ease, as those who have through choice or necessity
addicted themselves to study, or by men who love a busy life, as
those who, while philosophizing, have been much occupied with state
affairs and public business, or by men who choose a mixed life, in
imitation of those who have apportioned their time partly to
erudite leisure, partly to necessary business: by these
differences the number of the sects is tripled, and becomes
288.
I have thus, as briefly and lucidly
as I could, given in my own words the opinions which Varro
expresses in his book. But how he refutes all the rest of these
sects, and chooses one, the Old Academy, instituted by Plato, and
continuing to Polemo, the fourth teacher of that school of
philosophy which held that their system was certain; and how on
this ground he distinguishes it from the New Academy,1262
1262 Frequently called the Middle
Academy; the New beginning with Carneades. | which
began with Polemo’s successor Arcesilaus, and held that all
things are uncertain; and how he seeks to establish that the Old
Academy was as free from error as from doubt,—all this, I say,
were too long to enter upon in detail, and yet I must not
altogether pass it by in silence. Varro then rejects, as a first
step, all those differences which have multiplied the number of
sects; and the ground on which he does so is that they are not
differences about the supreme good. He maintains that in
philosophy a sect is created only by its having an opinion of its
own different from other schools on the point of the
ends-in-chief. For man has no other reason for philosophizing
than that he may be happy; but that which makes him happy is itself
the supreme good. In other words, the supreme good is the reason
of philosophizing; and therefore that cannot be called a sect of
philosophy which pursues no way of its own towards the supreme
good. Thus, when it is
asked whether a wise man will
adopt the social life, and desire and be interested in the supreme
good of his friend as in his own, or will, on the contrary, do all
that he does merely for his own sake, there is no question here
about the supreme good, but only about the propriety of associating
or not associating a friend in its participation: whether the
wise man will do this not for his own sake, but for the sake of his
friend in whose good he delights as in his own. So, too, when it
is asked whether all things about which philosophy is concerned are
to be considered uncertain, as by the New Academy, or certain, as
the other philosophers maintain, the question here is not what end
should be pursued, but whether or not we are to believe in the
substantial existence of that end; or, to put it more plainly,
whether he who pursues the supreme good must maintain that it is a
true good, or only that it appears to him to be true, though
possibly it may be delusive,—both pursuing one and the same
good. The distinction, too, which is founded on the dress and
manners of the Cynics, does not touch the question of the chief
good, but only the question whether he who pursues that good which
seems to himself true should live as do the Cynics. There were,
in fact, men who, though they pursued different things as the
supreme good, some choosing pleasure, others virtue, yet adopted
that mode of life which gave the Cynics their name. Thus,
whatever it is which distinguishes the Cynics from other
philosophers, this has no bearing on the choice and pursuit of that
good which constitutes happiness. For if it had any such bearing,
then the same habits of life would necessitate the pursuit of the
same chief good, and diverse habits would necessitate the pursuit
of different ends.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|