#diogeneslaertius — Public Fediverse posts

Diogenes of Sinope said we sell things of great value for things of very little, and vice versa.

— Diogenes Laertius

#Stoic #Stoicism #DiogenesLaertius

#Zitat: "Zu dem jungen Mann, der Unfug sprach, sagte Zenon: Der Grund, warum wir zwei Ohren haben, aber nur einen Mund, ist der, dass wir mehr zuhören sollen und weniger sprechen."

#DiogenesLaertius, Leben und Meinungen berühmter Philosophen, 7.1.23

#Zuhören #Problemlösen

Classical Republicanism and Stoicism refutes Racial Hierarchies

Classical Republicanism, as articulated in ancient Greek and Roman political philosophy emphasizes the pursuit of the common good for the CIVITAS through civic virtue, balanced governance, and participation in public life, without grounding these ideals in biological or racial hierarchies as understood in modern terms. Far from being inherently racist, its foundational texts reveal a focus on cultural, ethical, and institutional factors, often challenging notions of inherent inferiority. The ancient world lacked a concept of “race” as defined in post-Enlightenment biological categorization underlying modern racism. Instead, distinctions like “Greek” versus “barbarian” are primarily linguistic and cultural attachments, with “barbarian” deriving from onomatopoeic imitation of foreign speech (see Herodotus, Histories, 1.58). This cultural framing allowed for assimilation and mobility, refuting any systematic ancient state racism. Moreover, classical philosophers provided arguments that systematically undermine both ancient prejudices and contemporary race realism, the pseudoscientific claim of inherent racial differences in traits like intelligence through appeals to reason, nature, and empirical evidence.

ANCIENT STATE RACISM REFUTED WITH CLASSICAL SOURCES

Ancient republics, such as Athens and Rome did not structure their polities around racial exclusion but around citizenship tied to law, custom, and participation. In Greece, citizenship was often limited to free-born males of Athenian parentage, yet this was not racial. Foreigners (metics) could contribute economically and militarily, and exceptional individuals like the philosopher Anacharsis, a Scythian “barbarian,” were celebrated for wisdom (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 1.101-105). Aristotle, a key figure in republican thought, critiqued rigid hierarchies in his Politics, noting that some argue “for one man to be another man’s master is contrary to nature, because it is only convention that makes the one a slave and the other a freeman and there is no difference between them by nature” (Aristotle, Politics, 1253b20-23).

Plato acknowledges that slavery often results from war or force, not innate racial traits; and he warns against assuming all non-Greeks are natural slaves, as Greeks themselves could become enslaved if defeated (Aristotle, Politics, 1255a28-32). This cripples any claim of inherent state-sanctioned racism, emphasizing contingency over biology.

In Rome, republicanism evolved into an even more inclusive framework as elaborated in Aegean Origins and History of the Fasces: Minoan Crete to Revolutionary Republicanism. Cicero, in De Re Publica, defines the republic as “an association of many, united by a common sense of right and a community of interest” (Cicero, De Re Publica, 1.39), without restricting this to ethnic Romans. Roman citizenship expanded progressively: from the Social War (91-88 BCE) granting it to Italian allies, to Julius Caesar extending it to provincials, culminating in Emperor Caracalla’s Edict of 212 CE, which conferred citizenship on all free inhabitants of the empire regardless of origin (Cassius Dio, Roman History, 78.9.4-5).

This universalism reflected republican ideals of justice and utility, not racial purity. Polybius, praising the Roman constitution, attributes its success to a mixed government blending monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, crediting adaptability and incorporation of diverse peoples rather than exclusion (Polybius, Histories, 6.3-18).

Stoic philosophy, deeply intertwined with Roman republicanism, further dismantles prejudicial notions through cosmopolitanism. Influenced by Cynics like Diogenes, who declared himself “a citizen of the world” (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 6.63), Stoics viewed all rational beings as equal citizens of a cosmic polity governed by universal reason (LOGOS). Chrysippus argued that true kinship lies in shared rationality, not blood or locality, rejecting conventional ties that divide humanity (Plutarch, On the Fortune of Alexander, 329a-b). Cicero writes of this in De Legibus, stating that “there is no difference in kind between man and man; for if there were, one definition could not be applicable to all men” (Cicero, De Legibus, 1.29-30).

Seneca reinforces the position:

“Nature bids me do good to all mankind… Wherever there is a human being, there is room for kindness” (Seneca, De Vita Beata, 24.3).

Epictetus, himself a former slave of non-Roman origin, taught that all humans are “sons of Zeus” and brothers, bound by divine reason irrespective of status or ethnicity (Epictetus, Discourses, 1.13.3-5). These ideas, elemental to republican governance under figures like Marcus Aurelius, promoted ethical universalism, directly countering ethnocentric biases and showing that classical republicanism prioritized virtue and reason over birth.

Ancient prejudices existed, such as Aristotle’s view that some barbarians lack deliberative faculty (Aristotle, Politics, 1252b5-9), but these were contested within the tradition itself and framed culturally, not racially. Environmental determinism, as in Hippocrates’ Airs, Waters, Places, make connections between temperament and climate, implying malleability through relocation or education, not fixed inheritance (Hippocrates, “Airs, Waters, Places,” 12-24). This fluidity allowed “barbarians” like the Persian Cyrus to be idealized as virtuous rulers (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 1.1.4), demonstrating that ancient republicanism was not inherently tied to racism but to improvable human potential.

Classical republicanism’s emphasis on universal reason and civic inclusion, bolstered by scientific evidence of human genetic unity and environmental determinants invites a politics of shared humanity, not division. I urge you to take your proper roles in the development of civilization, instead of relinquishing the future to technological advancements and its ever-increasing demands on our time and ‘sense of will.’

STOICISM AND COSMOPOLITANISM

In the discussion of Classical Republicanism and its refutation of racial hierarchies, Stoic philosophy plays pivotal philosophical role through its emphasis on universal reason (LOGOS), shared humanity, and cosmopolitanism —the idea that all people are citizens of a single, rational world order. This is the metaphysical boundary of a republic. These ideas influenced Roman republican thinkers and view humanity as united by virtue and reason, not divided by birth.

When asked where he came from, Diogenes the Cynic stated:

‘I am a citizen of the world [kosmopolitês].’ (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 6.63)

Diogenes of Sinope (c. 412-323 BCE), though a Cynic philosopher, profoundly influenced Stoicism, particularly its founder Zeno of Citium, who studied under Cynic teachers. This anecdote appears in Diogenes Laertius’s biographical compendium, which compiles stories about philosophers’ lives and sayings. Diogenes, an exile from Sinope, lived as a wandering beggar in Athens, rejecting conventional attachments to city-states, family, or social norms. His declaration came in response to questions about his origins, challenging the parochial loyalties of Greek poleis (city-states) during an era of interstate rivalries and xenophobia.

This phrase “cosmopolitan” was coined from kosmos meaning world or universe and politês meaning citizen. It rejects ethnic or national boundaries, asserting that true identity stems from participation in a universal community governed by nature and reason. For Stoics, this evolved into the idea that all rational beings share a divine spark or fragment of the One Element, making divisions like “Greek vs. barbarian” not of necessity. In refuting racism, it promotes a borderless ethics where kindness and justice extend to all, anticipating modern human rights concepts (see Our Pre-Stoic Roots in Human Rights Theory in the United States). Diogenes’s life exemplified this, and despite being seen as a “barbarian” from the Black Sea region, he thrived in Greek intellectual circles, showing cultural barriers are surmountable through virtue.

FOR CHRYSIPPUS OF SOLI THERE IS TRUE KINSHIP IN SHARED RATIONALITY

In Plutarch’s On the Fortune of Alexander (329a-b), the idea is articulated through reference to Stoic principles, often attributed to Chrysippus (though the text cites Zeno directly): “Our household arrangements should not be based on cities or parishes, each one marked out by its own legal system, but we should regard all men as our fellow-citizens and local communities, and there should be one way of life and order, like that of a herd grazing together nurtured by a common law.” Plutarch contrasts this with Alexander’s conquests, but Chrysippus elaborated it as: “Life in agreement with nature means not doing anything that is forbidden by the common law, which is right reason pervading everything.”1 Chrysippus of Soli (c. 279-206 BCE), the third head of the Stoic school after Zeno and Cleanthes, systematized Stoicism in over 700 works (mostly lost). We are able to draw from his ethical fragments, preserved in Plutarch’s Moralia (c. 100 CE), where Plutarch praises Alexander the Great for embodying Stoic ideals by uniting diverse peoples. Chrysippus built on Zeno’s Republic, envisioning a world polity where reason (logos) is the “common law” binding humanity, rejecting tribal or ethnic divisions. So, it has been the tactic of the modern racist (particularly the “race realist”) to depict “non-White people” as incapable of reason (logos) or of “understanding higher subjects.”

Firstly, Chrysippus argues that rationality, not ancestry or locality, defines human bonds! Humans are like a “herd” under one natural law, implying equality and mutual care. This directly counters ancient biopolitics (e.g., viewing non-Greeks as inferior) and modern race realism by emphasizing that differences are superficial. The universally-diffused shared logos makes all capable of virtue (see Roots of the “Divine Spark” in African Religious and Philosophical Traditions).

In REPUBLICANISM, this supported inclusive citizenship, as seen in Rome’s expansions, promoting a politics where “fellow-citizens” include all rational beings, fostering anti-racist universalism.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN KIND BETWEEN MAN AND MAN IN CICERO’S PHILOSOPHY

“But there is no difference in kind between man and man; for if there were, one definition could not be applicable to all men; and indeed reason, which alone raises us above the level of the beasts and enables us to infer, by a process of reasoning, that certain things are so which our senses have not perceived, is common to all men, and though varying in what it learns, at least in the capacity to learn it is invariable.” (Cicero, De Legibus, 1.29-30)

“For it is impossible that the divine mind should exist without reason; and divine reason must necessarily be possessed of a power to determine what is virtuous.”

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BCE), a Roman statesman and philosopher, wrote De Legibus (On the Laws) around 52 BCE as a dialogue on natural law and ideal governance, modeled after Plato’s Laws. Here, in Book 1, Cicero (as a character) discusses human nature with his brother Quintus and friend Atticus, arguing for a universal law rooted in reason, drawing heavily from Stoic sources like Panaetius. Cicero asserts that reason is the defining human trait, universally shared and invariant in potential, making all people fundamentally equal regardless of external differences. This universal definition for humanity refutes hierarchies based on race or origin, as education and environment can equalize knowledge. In my view, from my studies , I observe multiple other factors in detail that can equalize knowledge, because it is not simply the environment that influences. It is the manner in which one reflects their relation to self and that environment. Society and culture in ancient Rome also radically differs from that of the modern American and even the present-day American from a century ago. There are many unfortunate factors that affect environments today in which, e.g., Black kids learn and develop — from the cradle through schooling. However, in the anti-racism context, it undermines claims of innate inferiority, which is mainly obsessively and tactfully focused on Black people, aligning with scientific views that genetic variation doesn’t create categorical differences in cognitive capacity. Cicero’s republicanism applied this to law, advocating justice for all, influencing later thinkers like Locke on natural rights.

SENECA ON NATURE BIDDING US DO GOOD TO ALL MANKIND

“Nature bids me do good to all mankind. What difference does it make whether they are slaves or freemen, freeborn or emancipated, whether their freedom is legally acquired or bestowed by friends? Wherever there is a human being, there is room for kindness (beneficentia).” (Seneca, De Vita Beata, 24.3)

Nature compels me, Seneca states, to be of use to all mankind. Lucius Annaeus Seneca (c. 4 BCE–65 CE), a Roman Stoic and advisor to Nero, wrote De Vita Beata (On the Happy Life) around 58 CE as a dialogue defending Stoic ethics against Epicurean pleasure-seeking. In Chapter 24, Seneca addresses beneficence, arguing that virtue involves active goodwill toward others, rooted in nature’s being.

Seneca extends kindness universally, ignoring social statuses like slavery or birth, which were rampant in Rome. This “room for kindness” wherever a human exists is cosmopolitan duty, countering exclusionary prejudices. It refutes racism by mandating ethical treatment based on shared humanity, not group identity, and supports environmental explanations for differences (e.g., through nurturing), as virtue is cultivable in all.

EPICTETUS ON ALL HUMANS AS BROTHERS AND SONS OF ZEUS

“Will you not bear with your own brother, who has Zeus for his progenitor, and is like a son from the same seeds and of the same descent from above? But if you have been put in any such higher place, will you immediately make yourself a tyrant? Will you not remember who you are, and whom you rule? That they are kinsmen, that they are brethren by nature, that they are the offspring of Zeus?” (Epictetus, Discourses, 1.13.3-5)

The chapter continues: “But I have purchased them, and they have not purchased me. Do you see in what direction you are looking, that it is towards the earth, towards the pit, that it is towards these wretched laws of dead men? But towards the laws of the gods you are not looking.” Epictetus (c. 50–135 CE), a former slave turned Stoic teacher, delivered his Discourses (recorded by student Arrian) as lectures on practical ethics. In 1.13, titled “How everything may be done acceptably to the gods,” he critiques a slave-owner’s attitude, using it to illustrate reverence for divine order through respect for others. Epictetus, of non-Roman (possibly Phrygian) origin and enslaved, speaks from experience, equating all humans as “brethren by nature” and divine offspring. This kinship through Zeus, symbolizing universal reason supercedes man-made hierarchies like slavery or ethnicity. It dismantles racism by prioritizing “laws of the gods” (natural equality) over “laws of dead men” (social constructs), aligning with evidence that disparities stem from environment, not biology, and urging ethical republicanism through mutual respect.

Stoicism’s doctrines on reason, nature, and virtue foster an inclusive worldview, and is integral to Classical Republicanism’s anti-hierarchical ethos. They provide timeless arguments against division, emphasizing perfectibilism and shared potential in all people, in the commonwealth, in the nation.

FOOTNOTES

1. See also Plutarch’s broader discussion in the essay, emphasizing that true kinship is not by blood but by shared reason. ↩︎

A quotation from Diogenes Laertius

Let no one delay to study philosophy while he is young, and when he is old let him not become weary of the study; for no man can ever find the time unsuitable or too late to study the health of his soul. And he who asserts either that it is not yet time to philosophize, or that the hour is passed, is like a man who should say that the time is not yet come to be happy, or that it is too late.
 
[Μήτε νέος τις ὢν μελλέτω φιλοσοφεῖν, μήτε γέρων ὑπάρχων κοπιάτω φιλοσοφῶν: οὔτε γὰρ ἄωρος οὐδείς ἐστιν οὔτε πάρωρος πρὸς τὸ κατὰ ψυχὴν ὑγιαῖνον. ὁ δὲ λέγων ἢ μήπω τοῦ φιλοσοφεῖν ὑπάρχειν ἢ παρεληλυθέναι τὴν ὥραν ὅμοιός ἐστι τῷ λέγοντι πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν ἢ μήπω παρεῖναι τὴν ὥραν ἢ μηκέτι εἶναι τὴν ὥραν.]

Diogenes Laërtius (fl. 3rd C AD) Greek biographer [Διογένης Λαέρτιος]
Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, Book 10, “Epicurus,” sec. 122 (3rd C AD) [tr. Yonge (1915), ch. 27]

More info about (and translations of) this quote: wist.info/diogenes-laertius/80…

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #diogeneslaertius #age #justdoit #oldage #philosophy #tooearly #toolate #wisdom #youth

Diogenes of Sinope said we sell things of great value for things of very little, and vice versa.

— Diogenes Laertius

#Stoic #Stoicism #DiogenesLaertius

« The sun, too, shines into cesspools and is not polluted. »

― Diogenes Laërtius

🔗 · https://poligraf.tumblr.com/post/766888817545412609/the-sun-too-shines-into-cesspools-and-is-not

#quotes #DiogenesLaërtius #light #suns #purity

Diogenes of Sinope said we sell things of great value for things of very little, and vice versa.

— Diogenes Laertius

#Stoic #Stoicism #DiogenesLaertius

#DiogenesLaertius on #Pyrrho, or rather #Timon on #epoche — the "withholding of assent"

#DiogenesLaertius about the #virtues of the #druids:

“The Druids make their pronouncements by means of riddles and dark sayings, teaching that the gods must be worshipped, and no evil is done, and manly behavior maintained.”

Dugie Dêuoi – “Honor the Gods”
Gneie ne drucos – “Do no evil”
Biue eni mêdê – “Live in honor”

#pagan #celtic #culture

https://thenemeton.org/druid-virtues/

History of a Word: Greek Origin of “Theosophy”

THE NEOPLATONISTS, DIOGENES AND THE GREEK ORIGIN OF THE TERM THEOSOPHY, CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM & THE 1875 THEOS. SOC.

There are multiple ways to describe Theosophy, whether technical, mystical, from the special point-of-view of the mystic through their experience, or in describing the ancient wisdom of peoples and religions throughout human history. We must go outside of a Eurocentric view (e.g., of Classical Antiquity) to do so. Lets begin in the East in the Mediterranean, with the basics, the etymology that comes from the classical Greek language, and the way in which this term is still used, so that it may be able to regain meaning for us in our times within or outside of any association. Firstly, there are two connotations to the word “Theosophy” being (1) traditional theosophy in association with the Alexandrian Neo-Platonists and Christian Protestant use of the term predating the 1875 Theosophical Society founded in New York. This traditional theosophy is “itself an expression in various cultures and times of the Primordial Theosophy, which was the gift of superhuman agents and is the birthright of humanity” (THEOSOPHY, Theosophical Encyclopedia). Prior to 1875, after the death of Emmanuel Swedenborg in 1772, an organization was founded in 1784 in London with the name of “Theosophical Society” to publish the works of Swedenborg. The theology of Swedenborg is Christian-centric, and he did not profess a belief in the doctrine of reincarnation, but Swedenborg anticipates several doctrines to be found in both Spiritualism and Theosophy.

This first connotation of the term Theosophy commonly refers to ‘divine inspiration’ or ‘intuition.’ The word theosophy comes from the Greek theos “god” and sophia “wisdom.” Providing a brief glossary of the term Theosophy, it describes a characteristic way of approaching and interpreting the world. Theosophists carried on this method and influenced a period of philosophical revival. There are many individuals that can be described as propagators of this traditional theosophy in the past before the 1875 Movement such as sources shaped in the Renaissance, like Christian kabbalah, Hermetic and revivalist Neoplatonic thinking.

A few of these names come to mind, such as: Gabriel Mathieu Marconis de Nègre, Antoine-Joseph Pernety, Martinez de Pasqually, A.E. Ragon, Louis Claude de Saint-Martin, Jean-Baptiste Willermoz, Emanuel Swedenborg, and Frère Chastanier featured on this Timeline of Templars to the Enlightenment (1075-1875). Some listed here are Freemasons and proponents of Protestant theosophy. The Neo-Platonists were Analogeticists — “on account of their method of interpreting all sacred legends, symbolical myths and mysteries, by a rule of analogy or correspondence, so that events which had occurred in the external world were regarded as expressing operations and experiences of the human soul” (Helena Blavatsky, What Is Theosophy). The origins of an “ancestral Gnosis” through the Neo-Platonists (Jean-Louis Siemons: “Theosophy” in Neo-Platonic and Christian Literature) were traced to the Ptolemaic dynasties, and antedated Ptolemy I Soter according to Diogenes Laërtius. The term was passed down and meant for those their contemporaries styled “theodidaktoi” (god-taught).

In the second connotation (2) modern Theosophy on the other hand derives primarily from the writings of several figures who founded the Theosophical Society, specifically H.P. Blavatsky. Blavatsky’s first use of the term was in a private letter to Hiram P. Corson (February 1875), directly derived from Christian D. Ginsburg’s The Kabbalah Its Doctrine, Development and literature: An Essay (1865). The word entered the ‘Theosophical Society’ at a pre-formation gathering, 13 September 1875, when it was derived from Webster’s American Dictionary (1868). Thereafter Blavatsky only used the word ‘Theosophy’ four times between 1874-1878 in which Alexander Wilder’s New Platonism and Alchemy (1869) was her primary source.

Blavatsky’s innovative connotations used to refer to an absolute Truth made Theosophy synonymous with ‘Wisdom-Religion’ to describe the ancient common source of all religions and magical knowledge, echoing Celsus (Celsus discourse Against the Christian Cult). Theosophists explained that the term Theosophia implies in its etymology, not belief in a personal extra-cosmic (i.e., outside of Space and Time) god as in Christian theology but signifies knowledge concerning the real nature of man and higher occult wisdom, or real magical knowledge as is possessed by the gods. In technical terms, not “the Wisdom of God” as commonly defined, but divine hidden wisdom as is held by (or of) [and is intelligible to] ‘the gods,’ involving practical experience and interaction with super-sensible reality. This technical distinction, seemingly small at first has an importance. H.P. Blavatsky’s Theosophy in Context explains how Blavatsky uses the concept ‘Theosophy’ in her primary discourses and writings for (1) discourse for ancient knowledge and ethics; (2) discourse against Christian dogmatism, (3) discourse against the modern natural sciences and materialism, (4) discourse against modern spiritualism, (5) discourse for system and (7) discourse for universal brotherhood. Number 7 may include, given the history of the Theosophical Movement, discourse for diplomacy and religious pluralism. Blavatsky’s exposition of specific occult doctrines stems from early book learning as a child, her life experiences studying in other religious communities and primarily, derived from what she called ‘trans-Himalayan esotericism’ — from her teachers and their school, which she professed to be a student and emissary of. Blavatsky’s discourse for ancient knowledge she refers to as the Wisdom of the Ages is the major theme in her works and theosophical discourse (see Tim Rudbøg’s PhD Thesis on Blavatsky).

WHO ARE THEOSOPHISTS

“A name by which many mystics at various periods of history have called themselves. The Neo-Platonists of Alexandria were Theosophists; the Alchemists and Kabbalists during the mediæval ages were likewise so called, also the Martinists, the Quietists, and other kinds of mystics, whether acting independently or incorporated in a brotherhood or society. All real lovers of divine Wisdom and Truth had, and have, a right to the name, rather than those who, appropriating the qualification, live lives or perform actions opposed to the principles of Theosophy. As described by Brother Kenneth R. Mackenzie, the Theosophists of the past centuries—“entirely speculative, and founding no schools, have still exercised a silent influence upon philosophy; and, no doubt, when the time arrives, many ideas thus silently propounded may yet give new directions to human thought. One of the ways in which these doctrines have obtained not only authority, but power, has been among certain enthusiasts in the higher degrees of Masonry. This power has, however, to a great degree died with the founders, and modern Freemasonry contains few traces of theosophic influence.” (THEOSOPHISTS, THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY)

There have been several ardent and diligent Masons and Philaletheians since her time, that have been inspired to do just this.

#Christianity #DiogenesLaertius #GreekLanguage #Mysticism #neoplatonists #Protestants #Swedenborg #Theosophy #WesternEsotericism