On reading Katharina Vogt, “Philosophy” (Online at Academia.edu), forthcoming in R. Gibson and C. Whitton (eds.), The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Studies (Cambridge University Press)...
Vogt’s
essay casts an interesting look at philosophy from a Roman point of
view. While philosophers have generally regarded Roman thinkers as
mediocre epigones best used as sources for missing Greek thought,
Vogt quite rightly points out that original philosophical theory was
not the Romans’ aim. Instead-- even more so than the Hellenistic
schools-- they sought philosophy only as a guide to practical living.
Vogt elaborates a lucid and compelling picture of this ‘practical’
strain throughout the history of philosophy in ancient Rome, and her
chapter opens a new understanding of the social role of philosophy in
Rome.
What
disturbs me is the inclusion of this essay in a “critical guide”.
Philosophically, Vogt’s chapter is anything but critical. Rather,
her aim is to reveal the values of the Romans themselves. One might
describe it as a contribution to the sociology of philosophy. But
their ‘practical’ bent is precisely a major fault in Roman
philosophy. Panaetius had already purged Stoicism of anything that
might be uncomfortable for Roman aristocrats like his patron.
Musonius Rufus carefully tailored his teaching for paying followers
with Roman values. Even Cicero makes it clear that he will not accept
views which infringe upon conventional Roman values. The mos
maiorum (and later, Christian
dogma) always trumped free thinking.
I
certainly recommend her chapter, but I suggest that it be read in
conjunction with Lucian’s contributions to the sociology of philosophy, especially On Salaried Posts in Great
Houses.
No comments:
Post a Comment