Hellenistic Conceptions of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness

John William Waterhouse - Diogenes 1882

In our previous essay, we saw how Plato and Aristotle developed mythological and speculatively elementary concepts of truth, beauty, and goodness into a unified trinity that could be fully integrated into their robust systems of philosophy. These men had a number of contemporaries in the Classical period, as well as schools that would later arise in Hellenistic Greece that would either expand upon their philosophy or provide alternative viewpoints. Typically, these later philosophies lacked the holistic unity of truth, beauty, and goodness sought by Plato and Aristotle, manifesting a more selective focus that privileged only one or two of these ideals, often in isolation. Nevertheless, despite the differing perspectives or perhaps even owing to them, valuable insights were added to the edifice of thought in Western civilisation that are worthy of our present consideration.

The Cyrenaics

This was an odd school formed by Aristippus, a follower of Socrates, thus a contemporary of Plato. The Cyrenaics never developed a metaphysics beyond repeating Heraclitus' observation of an observable world in continuous flux. Rather, they assume a dogmatism about the possibility of knowing any truth about reality, even holding an extreme scepticism that extended to their own subjective thoughts and feelings. Their rejection of theories of reality and knowledge seem to feed into an ethic that can only be characterised as an egotistical hedonism. For the Cyrenaic, the Good amounted to nothing more than personal pleasure. Such pleasure Aristippus claims, “discerned the good by the single present time alone.” Aristipppus advocated for pleasure to be individual, immediate, and intense with a minimum of pain. He did not believe in deferring present pleasures for the sake of achieving better long-term consequences. Neither did he nor subsequent Cyrenaics have much use for the traditional Greek virtues. Whereas Plato viewed justice and temperance as virtues associated with rational, thus higher pleasure that led to a meaningful life of human flourishing, the Cyrenaics rejected any speech, thought, or purpose in life expressed through such so-called virtues as nothing more than arbitrary, cultural conventions. The good life? Seek bodily pleasure, don't think too much, and thereby avoid trouble in body and soul would pretty much sum up their world view.

The Cynics

Antisthenes began as an aristocratic follower of Gorgias the Sophist only to later became one of Socrates' most ardent disciples. He continued much of the central themes of Socrates' philosophy such as that the good life was one lived according to the virtues, therefore uncovering the truth regarding them was the highest pleasure. Although Antisthenes has been attributed as the founder of the Cynics, this is very much in dispute and seems unlikely. However, there were anticipations of the Cynics in his style of teaching as he did promote an aesthetic way of life that provided time for cultivation of virtue whilst avoiding the distractions of physical pleasures. Antisthenes likewise stressed the need to live in accord with nature in contrast to submission to the conventions of civilisation, in so doing disparaging many social obligations, material luxuries, and sensual pleasures.

Cynicism can more properly be attributed to Diogenes who took Antisthenes interpretations of Socrates' teaching to yet further extremes of asceticism. Also, he followed the Cyrenaics in rejecting the pursuit of metaphysics with specific criticisms directed at Plato. Diogenes demonstrated in his teaching a near total rejection of the conventions of civilisation. He was reported to live naked at the side of the road in a pithos, a large clay pot for storage of grain. Whatever men did in private, he did in public: eating, sleeping, defecating, even masturbation and sex. For this reason he and his followers were pejoratively called "cynics", because they were said to live like dogs (kynos). At times the Cynics showed anti-authoritarian tendencies; however, for the most part they preached indifference to society in lieu of self-sufficiency. As man's troubles were products of culture (money, marriage, family, etc.), peace and contentment was to be found in a return to nature.

According to the Cynics, nature offers the clearest indication of how to live the good life which is characterized by reason, agency, and freedom. Social conventions tend to hinder the good life, compromising freedom and setting up norms of conduct that are opposed to nature and reason. Diogenes considered parrhēsia, the freedom to speak the truth, “the most beautiful thing in the world”, a freedom that civilisation suppressed. The things men would strive to learn with the Sophists or appeal to the gods for, such as wealth, honour, or power was to Diogenes utter folly for which he, “would rebuke men in general with regard to their prayers, declaring that they asked for things which seemed to them to be good, not for such as are truly good.” I find it interesting that, though the contemporary meaning of "cynical" is quite different, aspects of the ancient Cynic's world view saw a resurgence in 19th century Romantic philosophy and is still very active and relevant today.

The Sceptics

I would characterise Scepticism as more of a disposition towards the world than a coherent philosophy. The word "sceptic" literally means "to reflect" which is precisely what this group of philosophers did with every claim of certain knowledge that they encountered. One of the leading Sceptics, Sextus Empiricus suggested that there were three possible conclusions one might draw when presented with a knowledge claim. You can think you've found truth (positive dogmatist). You can deny any possibility of truth (negative dogmatist). Or you can take the sceptical position of suspending judgement so as to carry on in reflection.

A real Sceptic would be even hesitant to say that "he does not know truth." After all he might!. He just doesn't know for certain whether he knows or not so that the Sceptic finds tranquility and contentment in suspending judgement. This Hellenistic scepticism was not so radical as to question subjective appearances such as what people sensed or felt. Rather, it specifically challenged the type of certain, eternal, transcendental truth claims that had been the subject of rational inquiry for philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. On the surface, the purpose of this type of scepticism was not to deny that such truths were possible or discourage the pursuit of them. Instead, its purported aim was to unsettle dogmatism, rattle unwarranted confidence, so as to maintain an open mind towards further inquiry. Whether or not most Sceptics were sincere in their pursuit of truth or merely using their techniques in a rhetorical fashion to debunk arguments is a matter of some debate. Nevertheless, many of the tropes they developed remain quite useful in uncovering logical flaws often inherent in presuppositions of arguments as well as clarifying personal bias out of rational thinking.

The Epicureans

Unlike the previous schools that had a number of influences, Epicureanism was essentially a personality cult of one man: Epicurus. He adopted Democritus' physics of atomism, with one adjustment allowing for a bit of indeterminacy. In doing so he openly rejected not only Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics but even the possibility of final causes or an immaterial soul. For Epicurus, everything including the soul was material; nothing pre-exists or survives the death of the body. His was a philosophy of the here and now, a life of "eudaimonia", literally "well-being", achieved through subordination to the virtue of prudence, practical reason. As this life is all there is, pleasure was to be the beginning and end of the good life. Likewise time for us is short. Because of this he promotes "ataraxia", imperturbability. Some physical pain and much psychological pain is self-generated. Freedom from disturbance often amounts to learning what not to care about.

Roberto Bompiani - A Roman Feast

For Epicurus, all human thought, speech, and ethics are conventional and a breeding ground of confused opinions.  Although we may at times misinterpret our impressions, it is our sensual experiences of pleasure and pain rather than abstract moral principles or concepts of good and bad that constitute our primary criterion of truth. The highest good is inherent, what is valued for its own sake. The highest good cannot be instrumental, for the sake of anything else: not for the gods, not for the good, not for love. Instead, he identifies well-being with personal pleasure; to his mind it's the only thing people do for its own sake. In the end, everything we do is egoistical, done for the sake of our own pleasure, even what might outwardly appear sacrificial or for the sake of virtue. This last sentiment is more what we mean by the term "cynical" nowadays.

Epicurus was likewise a thoroughgoing empiricist. Experience reveals truth in a representational manner. Our perceptive capacities immediately inform us that pleasure is good and pain is bad. There is an accurate correspondence between the source of sensation out there and what our sense organs report back to us. We don't need the pre-existent immaterial souls of Plato to recall transcendental Forms, instead we remember directly right here and now, quickly building up sense experience and extending ideas by analogy. Epicurus even has one of the best responses for some of his Sceptic colleagues' doubt concerning knowledge and truth. If the senses are so unreliable, where do the concepts of knowledge and truth come from and what business to Sceptics even have of using them in their arguments?

Once again, after an heroic attempt at a theory of being, of knowledge, and the unity of truth, beauty, and goodness by Plato and Aristotle we find the concept of beauty in jeopardy, the Good reduced to mere subjective experience, and the possibility of an eternal truth questioned if not altogether rejected. In my next essay, we'll take a slight detour by considering concepts of truth, beauty, and goodness held in Hebrew scripture and by a couple of notable Jewish philosophers. 


Contributed by Patrick Webb