What do you think?
Rate this book
Sobre la Naturaleza de los Dioses
Según el propio Voltaire, el presente "es quizás el mejor libro de la antigüedad"
De natura deorum (Sobre la naturaleza de los dioses) es un diálogo filosófico escrito por el orador romano Cicerón en el año 45 a. C. que se presenta en tres "libros", en los que se discuten las teologías de los diferentes filósofos griegos y romanos. El diálogo se centra en la discusión de los estoicos y epicúreos.
El diálogo es, en general narrado por el propio Cicerón, a pesar de que no desempeña un papel activo en la discusión. Cayo Veleio representa la escuela epicúrea, Quincio Lucilio Balbo argumenta a favor de los estoicos, y Cayo Cotta habla del escepticismo propio de Cicerón académico.
El primer libro del diálogo contiene una introducción de Cicerón, Cayo Veleio habla de la teología de Epicuro y Cotta hace una crítica del epicureísmo.
El Libro II se centra en la explicación y la defensa de la teología estoica por parte de Balbo.
El Libro III establece las críticas de Cotta a las ideas expuestas por Balbo.
Aquí, tras estas páginas digitales.
De natura deorum (Sobre la naturaleza de los dioses) es un diálogo filosófico escrito por el orador romano Cicerón en el año 45 a. C. que se presenta en tres "libros", en los que se discuten las teologías de los diferentes filósofos griegos y romanos. El diálogo se centra en la discusión de los estoicos y epicúreos.
El diálogo es, en general narrado por el propio Cicerón, a pesar de que no desempeña un papel activo en la discusión. Cayo Veleio representa la escuela epicúrea, Quincio Lucilio Balbo argumenta a favor de los estoicos, y Cayo Cotta habla del escepticismo propio de Cicerón académico.
El primer libro del diálogo contiene una introducción de Cicerón, Cayo Veleio habla de la teología de Epicuro y Cotta hace una crítica del epicureísmo.
El Libro II se centra en la explicación y la defensa de la teología estoica por parte de Balbo.
El Libro III establece las críticas de Cotta a las ideas expuestas por Balbo.
Aquí, tras estas páginas digitales.
220 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 46
121 people are currently reading
2,981 people want to read
About the author
Marcus Tullius Cicero
7,795books1,885followersBorn 3 January 106 BC, Arpinum, Italy
Died 7 December 43 BC (aged 63), Formia, Italy
Marcus Tullius Cicero was a Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer, political theorist, and Roman constitutionalist. Cicero is widely considered one of Rome's greatest orators and prose stylists.
Alternate profiles:
侱éDz
Marco Tullio Cicerone
Cicerone
Note: All editions should have Marcus Tullius Cicero as primary author. Editions with another name on the cover should have that name added as secondary author.
Died 7 December 43 BC (aged 63), Formia, Italy
Marcus Tullius Cicero was a Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer, political theorist, and Roman constitutionalist. Cicero is widely considered one of Rome's greatest orators and prose stylists.
Alternate profiles:
侱éDz
Marco Tullio Cicerone
Cicerone
Note: All editions should have Marcus Tullius Cicero as primary author. Editions with another name on the cover should have that name added as secondary author.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 93 reviews
February 8, 2017
I devoured this book. Behe you fool! You can come up with no greater argument than Cicero's own watchmaker hypothesis? Idiot. The same so called "Reasons" for the gods are still the best we can do with all of our technological advances since Rome? Bastards. In praise of Cicero who for his time was highly critical in his critique of not only the existence of gods but what their inherent nature must be. Good for you Cicero and shame to all those who have done no better since him, prattling the same so called "proofs" when so much has been gained as of late.
The reasons this work must be read:
1. To gain an appreciation for the vastness of ideas surrounding the so called "gods" of his time, including those not taking human form such as worship of the sun, the universe, and various elements and virtues.
2. The identification with another human living at such a vital time in Roman history who as is very apparent not only possesses the rational arguments best equipped to him in his own human form but brilliantly presented as extended dialogue between characters.
3. To enjoy the views of the Epicureans and the Stoics of the day huzzah!
4. To gain an appreciation for what Rome had gained in knowledge from the Greeks as early as this! They knew that the stars were the same as the sun. That the sun was bigger only because of relative view! They knew that the earth was a sphere~! They knew that there were other universes similar to our own that were uncountable. What treasures we lost since then and what pains had to be taken to recover this information. The dark ages truly were dark indeed!
To be fair I will warn you Cicero does not fully develop all of his ideas, in fact he does not finish the book and many parts of it are rumored to be missing. The main flaw is that despite his rigorous challenges to a general belief in god he falls back on what seem to be long old assertions because perhaps of social pressure as many atheists were killed at this time and also perhaps because this is the best he can do. What a sad and unappealing ending to so many good thoughts and so much willing banter. Ah Cicero would you have been born in our times the greatness of your mind could more fully have been used to continue your eloquence on these matters! Tragedy! For Tragedy!
If you want to read a book to be convinced on the nature of god yourself, the existence of or the disproving of (despite the authors intent) this may not be the read for you as the book is for obvious reasons outdated in many of its references. But if you want to hear ancient philosophy in tow and marvel at the mind of man and his cognitive abilities to think through circumstance when heavily steeped and pressured by society to avoid such by all means enjoy as did I this short work.
The reasons this work must be read:
1. To gain an appreciation for the vastness of ideas surrounding the so called "gods" of his time, including those not taking human form such as worship of the sun, the universe, and various elements and virtues.
2. The identification with another human living at such a vital time in Roman history who as is very apparent not only possesses the rational arguments best equipped to him in his own human form but brilliantly presented as extended dialogue between characters.
3. To enjoy the views of the Epicureans and the Stoics of the day huzzah!
4. To gain an appreciation for what Rome had gained in knowledge from the Greeks as early as this! They knew that the stars were the same as the sun. That the sun was bigger only because of relative view! They knew that the earth was a sphere~! They knew that there were other universes similar to our own that were uncountable. What treasures we lost since then and what pains had to be taken to recover this information. The dark ages truly were dark indeed!
To be fair I will warn you Cicero does not fully develop all of his ideas, in fact he does not finish the book and many parts of it are rumored to be missing. The main flaw is that despite his rigorous challenges to a general belief in god he falls back on what seem to be long old assertions because perhaps of social pressure as many atheists were killed at this time and also perhaps because this is the best he can do. What a sad and unappealing ending to so many good thoughts and so much willing banter. Ah Cicero would you have been born in our times the greatness of your mind could more fully have been used to continue your eloquence on these matters! Tragedy! For Tragedy!
If you want to read a book to be convinced on the nature of god yourself, the existence of or the disproving of (despite the authors intent) this may not be the read for you as the book is for obvious reasons outdated in many of its references. But if you want to hear ancient philosophy in tow and marvel at the mind of man and his cognitive abilities to think through circumstance when heavily steeped and pressured by society to avoid such by all means enjoy as did I this short work.
December 4, 2013
My goal to read this in the original Latin has emerged partially intact: I read big chunks of each book untranslated, but not quite all of it. I read the intervening sections in translation. It was a fascinating way to read a piece of history and piece of philosophy. The slowness (and, mostly, the fact that I was reading it for a class) allowed for a good bit of outside reading, which enriched the experience. It also allowed for an appreciation of Cicero's language, which is really pretty wonderful sometimes. On the other hand, the close focus on translating the material meant that I often couldn't see the forest for the trees (it often felt as if I were just staring really closely at the bark).
Cicero's De natura deorum is a dialogue between three Roman philosophers: the Epicurean Velleius, the Stoic Balbus, and the Academic Skeptic Cotta. I only had the vaguest idea of what these labels entailed going into this text, and in a lot of ways I think that was a good way to approach it. One of Cicero's main reasons for writing his philosophical works was to introduce / expand the audience for Greek philosophy in the Roman world. Because of this, each book acts as a nice encapsulation of Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Skepticism, all presented in nice Ciceronian prose. Since its manuscripts survived the course of 2000+ years better than the manuscripts of the Greek philosophers who inspired it, De natura deorum provides us with quite a bit of what we know about Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Skepticism. It's also gone on to have quite an illustrious history of influencing great thinkers, from Augustine to Aquinas to Milton to Spinoza to Hume to Voltaire.
In the course of three days our three philosophers traverse the theological and philosophical landscape of contemporary Rome: do the gods exist, and if they do, in what manner? What shape do they take, what degree of concern do they have for human affairs? What is the nature of the cosmos, and what does that imply about its gods? And is there any way to know or to prove, really, if the gods exist at all?Despite the fact that they could easily just be mouthpieces, Cicero imbues each of his spokesmen with a nice sense of personality and humanity which breathes a lot of life into the text. Velleius has a nice sardonic wit, Balbus is effusive, Cotta is wary yet earnest. There are passages that are very clever and passages that are very beautiful.
I also like that the dialogue on a wonderfully ambiguous note. Cicero had inserted himself into the dialogue at the beginning of the text, but he's just an observer. Once he arrives and is invited to listen, he essentially disappears and does not speak another word until the work's last line. He the states the following:
Haec cum essent dicta, ita discessimus, ut Velleio Cottae disputatio verior, mihi Balbi ad veritatis similitudinem videretur esse propensior.
Roughly translated, it reads When these things had been said we all went our own way. To Velleius, the argument of Cotta seemed more accurate. But to me, the argument of Balbus seemed to closer to the likeness of the truth.
This is all kinds of fun, particularly because Cicero spends a solid portion of the introduction to his dialogue defending his choice to align with the Academic Skeptics - Cotta's school, not Balbus's - despite their relative unpopularity at the time. Lots of classicist ink has been spilled trying to figure out exactly what Cicero was playing at here: whether he was lying to protect his reputation against accusation of atheism, if he was really a closeted Stoic, or if he was simply demonstrating an application of Skeptical open-mindedness. I'm not sure that anyone really knows or will ever really know. But it's just a fun example of much thought and possibility is packed into almost every line of this text. It's the sort of work you can read over and over again and find new things each time.
Cicero's De natura deorum is a dialogue between three Roman philosophers: the Epicurean Velleius, the Stoic Balbus, and the Academic Skeptic Cotta. I only had the vaguest idea of what these labels entailed going into this text, and in a lot of ways I think that was a good way to approach it. One of Cicero's main reasons for writing his philosophical works was to introduce / expand the audience for Greek philosophy in the Roman world. Because of this, each book acts as a nice encapsulation of Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Skepticism, all presented in nice Ciceronian prose. Since its manuscripts survived the course of 2000+ years better than the manuscripts of the Greek philosophers who inspired it, De natura deorum provides us with quite a bit of what we know about Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Skepticism. It's also gone on to have quite an illustrious history of influencing great thinkers, from Augustine to Aquinas to Milton to Spinoza to Hume to Voltaire.
In the course of three days our three philosophers traverse the theological and philosophical landscape of contemporary Rome: do the gods exist, and if they do, in what manner? What shape do they take, what degree of concern do they have for human affairs? What is the nature of the cosmos, and what does that imply about its gods? And is there any way to know or to prove, really, if the gods exist at all?Despite the fact that they could easily just be mouthpieces, Cicero imbues each of his spokesmen with a nice sense of personality and humanity which breathes a lot of life into the text. Velleius has a nice sardonic wit, Balbus is effusive, Cotta is wary yet earnest. There are passages that are very clever and passages that are very beautiful.
I also like that the dialogue on a wonderfully ambiguous note. Cicero had inserted himself into the dialogue at the beginning of the text, but he's just an observer. Once he arrives and is invited to listen, he essentially disappears and does not speak another word until the work's last line. He the states the following:
Haec cum essent dicta, ita discessimus, ut Velleio Cottae disputatio verior, mihi Balbi ad veritatis similitudinem videretur esse propensior.
Roughly translated, it reads When these things had been said we all went our own way. To Velleius, the argument of Cotta seemed more accurate. But to me, the argument of Balbus seemed to closer to the likeness of the truth.
This is all kinds of fun, particularly because Cicero spends a solid portion of the introduction to his dialogue defending his choice to align with the Academic Skeptics - Cotta's school, not Balbus's - despite their relative unpopularity at the time. Lots of classicist ink has been spilled trying to figure out exactly what Cicero was playing at here: whether he was lying to protect his reputation against accusation of atheism, if he was really a closeted Stoic, or if he was simply demonstrating an application of Skeptical open-mindedness. I'm not sure that anyone really knows or will ever really know. But it's just a fun example of much thought and possibility is packed into almost every line of this text. It's the sort of work you can read over and over again and find new things each time.
May 3, 2016
Je suis encore sous le ravissement de cette lecture. C'est un des plus beaux textes philosophique sur la religion que j'ai pu lire jusqu'à présent. Celui envers lequel Quintilien ne tarit pas d'éloge en est l'auteur. 侱éDz, cet avocat, connu pour son implication politique à la veille de la fin de la République, était aussi un philosophe, tout comme Brutus à qui le livre est adressé. Il relate un dialogue entre trois amis romains auquel 侱éDz a assisté. Cotta, l'académicien, Véléius, l'épicurien et Balbus, le stoïcien, exposent leurs points de vue respectifs sur la nature des dieux, et les soumettent au jugement des uns et des autres, ou pour parler grec, à la critique. Le génie de 侱éDz ne se limite pas à placer dans la bouche de ses personnages des discours magnifiques, bien ordonnés et parés avec tout l'art dont il pouvait être capable ce maître de l'art oratoire. L'érudition dont ils sont emplis coule avec aisance, sans assommer le moins du monde. En mettant ses opinions en réserve, il magnifie la philosophie, il excite la curiosité et l'intérêt du lecteur en même temps qu'il le charme. Mais à la différence des dialogues de Platon où l'échange est souvent déséquilibré en faveur de Socrate, nos trois philosophes ne ménagent pas les opinions qui leur déplaisent; ils défendent sans pusillanimité leurs convictions, et attaquent âprement les sophismes. L'échange n'en devient que plus passionnant.
Si tous s'accordent sur l'existence probable des dieux, il s'en faut de beaucoup qu'il parviennent à s'entendre sur une définition. Mais ce qui compte le plus pour nous, c'est le commerce que les humains entretiennent avec eux, et ce qu'ils peuvent en attendre : là encore, pas d'unanimité. Ont-ils une forme humaine, animale, géométrique ? Sont-ils les astres de la voute céleste, dont la course parfaitement régulière remplis d'admiration et d'étonnement ? Sont ils les montagnes, les fleuves, les bois ? Sont-ils nos passions, amour, tristesse, joie, tromperie ? Ont-ils créé le monde ? Sont-ils indifférents, ou veillent-ils sur nous par une providence, une πρόνοια ? Pouvons-nous les fléchir par des prières et des offrandes ? Les rites sont-ils importants ? Les haruspices et les sibylles peuvent-ils percer les voies de la providence ?
Véléius donne aux dieux une apparence humaine mais les rend inapte à tout concours avec les humains, car il les décrit comme étant parfaitement heureux, et n'étant pas sujet aux passions humaines; ainsi rites, prières et divination ne sont que pures vanités. Cotta est choqué par cette opinion qui lui semble mener droit à un athéisme dangereux pour la cohésion sociale. En tant que Pontife, il défend les rites des hérités des ancêtres et attaque violemment l'opinion de l'épicurien, en accablant leur maître des traditionnelles invectives qui lui sont attachées. Mais ce n'est pas encore assez pour Balbus, qui regrette que Cotta ne donne pas une vision plus positive de la divinité, et entame un long et bel exposé des merveilles de la nature, dont l'équilibre et la perfection lui paraît être le résultat d'une volonté raisonnable, et non le simple fruit du hasard. Mais c'en est alors trop qui pour Cotta, qui réfute cette interprétation téléologique, et s'emporte contre l'enthousiasme de Balbius. Pour lui, l'exposé du stoïcien, quoique beau, est émaillé de faiblesses, offre prise à nombre de controverses, et pourrait ouvrir la porte à tous les excès de la superstition : pourquoi s'étendre à argumenter sur ce qui est évident au risque de le rendre obscure ? Hélas, la nuit vient arracher nos romains à leur discussion, et seule la dernière phrase dévoile les sentiments de l'auteur, Marcus Tullius Cicero.
Si tous s'accordent sur l'existence probable des dieux, il s'en faut de beaucoup qu'il parviennent à s'entendre sur une définition. Mais ce qui compte le plus pour nous, c'est le commerce que les humains entretiennent avec eux, et ce qu'ils peuvent en attendre : là encore, pas d'unanimité. Ont-ils une forme humaine, animale, géométrique ? Sont-ils les astres de la voute céleste, dont la course parfaitement régulière remplis d'admiration et d'étonnement ? Sont ils les montagnes, les fleuves, les bois ? Sont-ils nos passions, amour, tristesse, joie, tromperie ? Ont-ils créé le monde ? Sont-ils indifférents, ou veillent-ils sur nous par une providence, une πρόνοια ? Pouvons-nous les fléchir par des prières et des offrandes ? Les rites sont-ils importants ? Les haruspices et les sibylles peuvent-ils percer les voies de la providence ?
Véléius donne aux dieux une apparence humaine mais les rend inapte à tout concours avec les humains, car il les décrit comme étant parfaitement heureux, et n'étant pas sujet aux passions humaines; ainsi rites, prières et divination ne sont que pures vanités. Cotta est choqué par cette opinion qui lui semble mener droit à un athéisme dangereux pour la cohésion sociale. En tant que Pontife, il défend les rites des hérités des ancêtres et attaque violemment l'opinion de l'épicurien, en accablant leur maître des traditionnelles invectives qui lui sont attachées. Mais ce n'est pas encore assez pour Balbus, qui regrette que Cotta ne donne pas une vision plus positive de la divinité, et entame un long et bel exposé des merveilles de la nature, dont l'équilibre et la perfection lui paraît être le résultat d'une volonté raisonnable, et non le simple fruit du hasard. Mais c'en est alors trop qui pour Cotta, qui réfute cette interprétation téléologique, et s'emporte contre l'enthousiasme de Balbius. Pour lui, l'exposé du stoïcien, quoique beau, est émaillé de faiblesses, offre prise à nombre de controverses, et pourrait ouvrir la porte à tous les excès de la superstition : pourquoi s'étendre à argumenter sur ce qui est évident au risque de le rendre obscure ? Hélas, la nuit vient arracher nos romains à leur discussion, et seule la dernière phrase dévoile les sentiments de l'auteur, Marcus Tullius Cicero.
April 1, 2024
Cicero presents three philosophers having a dialogue (a trialogue (?)) about the existence and the nature of the gods.
This book taught me more about how the Romans viewed the world around them and what role religion played in their lives. It was fascinating to discover all the knowledge they already possessed about the behaviour of certain animals, about the human body, about the universe and much more. I also appreciated passages such as Balbus� etymology of the names of some of the gods or Cotta’s focus on morality (the eternal question of why god(s) allow(s) human suffering). Cicero includes (and disproves) religious arguments which have been used throughout the ages and which are still popular to this day.
It’s a real pity how much of the third book has been lost, but i’m glad the majority of the work has been preserved throughout the ages.
Also quick shout out to the homie who wrote the introduction; it was very helpful to read more in-depthly about the different philosophies which are represented by the three speakers.
This book taught me more about how the Romans viewed the world around them and what role religion played in their lives. It was fascinating to discover all the knowledge they already possessed about the behaviour of certain animals, about the human body, about the universe and much more. I also appreciated passages such as Balbus� etymology of the names of some of the gods or Cotta’s focus on morality (the eternal question of why god(s) allow(s) human suffering). Cicero includes (and disproves) religious arguments which have been used throughout the ages and which are still popular to this day.
It’s a real pity how much of the third book has been lost, but i’m glad the majority of the work has been preserved throughout the ages.
Also quick shout out to the homie who wrote the introduction; it was very helpful to read more in-depthly about the different philosophies which are represented by the three speakers.
November 30, 2020
Une réfutation des arguments épicuriens puis stoïciens sur la nature des Dieux, encore une fois sous forme de dialogue. Ici, c’est Cotta qui sert de porte parole à 侱éDz.
Le livre a des longueurs et est difficile à suivre tant sont nombreuses les références à l’histoire de Rome et à la mythologie antique; en revanche c’est une précieuse et intéressante source sur les idées des premiers stoïciens (Zénon et Chrysippe) dont il ne nous reste quasiment rien d’écrit. Si tant est qu’on puisse faire totale confiance à 侱éDz, qui saupoudre encore le dialogue de son habituelle raillerie légèrement mêlée de mauvaise foi envers les épicuriens et stoïciens. Punchlines:
«Démocrite lui-même, ce grand homme, qui est la source où Épicure a puisé (...) pour arroser ses petits jardins»
«Faisant venir [étymologiquement] «Neptune» de «nager» (...) vous m’avez paru nager plus que Neptune lui-même»
«Oui, je veux, avec vous, que ce qui est Dieu, ce soit le monde lui-même. Je veux que ce soit (...) Jupiter. Pourquoi donc y ajouter plusieurs autres Dieux? Quelle troupe! Il y en a beaucoup, ce me semble»
😂
Le livre a des longueurs et est difficile à suivre tant sont nombreuses les références à l’histoire de Rome et à la mythologie antique; en revanche c’est une précieuse et intéressante source sur les idées des premiers stoïciens (Zénon et Chrysippe) dont il ne nous reste quasiment rien d’écrit. Si tant est qu’on puisse faire totale confiance à 侱éDz, qui saupoudre encore le dialogue de son habituelle raillerie légèrement mêlée de mauvaise foi envers les épicuriens et stoïciens. Punchlines:
«Démocrite lui-même, ce grand homme, qui est la source où Épicure a puisé (...) pour arroser ses petits jardins»
«Faisant venir [étymologiquement] «Neptune» de «nager» (...) vous m’avez paru nager plus que Neptune lui-même»
«Oui, je veux, avec vous, que ce qui est Dieu, ce soit le monde lui-même. Je veux que ce soit (...) Jupiter. Pourquoi donc y ajouter plusieurs autres Dieux? Quelle troupe! Il y en a beaucoup, ce me semble»
😂
November 5, 2021
The best source for Stoic, Epicurean, and Academic theology next to the Lives and Opinions of Diogenes Laertius and the poem of Cicero's contemporary philosopher Lucretius. Written in a dialogue format reminiscent of Plato, Cicero goes at length to fairly represent each particular school (though it is obvious that certain quips he places in the mouth of others come from his own views). His disdain for Epicureanism is not unnoticeable, but with comparison to the Epicurean Lucretius' De Rerum Natura it cannot be said that he did not adequately represent genuine Epicurean views, though he dedicates a large portion of the text to a refutation of them. For the Stoics, we can sense that Cicero is much more open to their views than the Epicureans, but does not resist to attack them in an Academic fashion (some sections of which, unfortunately, are lost to time). Unlike the dry encyclopedic nature of Laertius' work, which is also one of the main sources for Stoic theology, Cicero flows much better and despite getting bogged down in name-dropping here and there is very readable. Overall it is a great book as an introduction to basic theology.
October 26, 2019
Of course we are all familiar with the Greek myths adopted by the Romans (The Metamorphoses, by Ovid, is a great Roman retelling of the classic Greek myths), but what did they really believe? In his Treatise on the Nature of the Gods, Cicero tells us. Here he gives us not dogma or a rehash of myths, but a sense of what educated men from the time of the late republic actually believed. This book is written as a dialogue, and its characters freely argue for their points of view and the bases for their beliefs or lack thereof. Interesting, but not so interesting that I didn’t find myself skimming bits of it. And, unfortunately for Cicero, I’ve read a couple of Plato’s dialogues at the same time I’ve been reading this, and Cicero suffers by the comparison. I love him, but his dialogue lacks the humor, characterization, and literary skill demonstrated by Plato.
February 24, 2022
This was the second of two Cicero texts I focused on this term, and also equally fascinating as the other, though perhaps for different reasons. Once again, I pity the poor Epicurean who dares to walk into Cicero’s villa. Second� I actually learned quite a fair bit about ancient religious practices and attitudes, which was really useful, not to mention Cicero’s own attitudes about himself. (Who could forget the man and great legend?) This one I also did read a fair bit in Latin as well, so it was great that I had the opportunity to brush up on my Latin this term. As always, reading Cicero in Latin can be an enjoyable� but sometimes confusing task. It’s worth it, though.
I alternatively read the Walsh and Rackham editions of this along with the Latin. I do think Walsh’s translation is well-done and quite accessible to the average reader (if there is such a thing for this kind of work). Walsh includes a ridiculous amount of footnotes for every reference, so fear not if you have no clue about ancient religion or ancient historical figures.
As in the other Cicero text I looked at, the explanation of Stoic theology, and especially of the rational ordering of the cosmos, were my favorite parts from Book 2. (I’m not going to get into Velleius or the Epicurean arguments here, as I much prefer Lucretius’s account. Velleius leaves a much less favorable impression.) There is some important discussion on the driving force of the world, pneuma, and how one can find hints of the divine spread throughout everything in the cosmos. The dialogue is also very revealing about Roman attitudes towards religion, and how significant the state’s cultivation and use of religion was in promoting its image and engaging with the populace.
Even though I’m an atheist, reading this was beautiful. There is something to be said about the appeal of the Stoic rationally ordered cosmos. I had an extremely emotionally compelling experience recently looking up at the night sky on my walk home, and being able to see so many stores on a clear night is breathtaking no matter how many times you do it. This feeling of being interconnected with the universe, and perhaps even with the very figures that are speaking in this dialogue, is a great quirk of human existence.
There are also some fascinating arguments presented in the dialogue, both by Balbus (the Stoic spokesman) and later Cotta (the Academic Skeptic). There is a proto-watchmaker argument given by Balbus in defense of the divine creation of the world, and even a proto-ontological argument like Anselm’s. Cotta in his refutation even points out the classic problem of evil dilemma. There is even something like the infinite monkey theorem. An entire section in Book 2 deals with astronomy and the detail contained therein is astounding; the geocentric view is completely false, of course, but so many other things were ‘right�. It’s quite sensible and yet surprising that such arguments have a long and storied history. There is also a fair bit said about divine providence, which lends itself well to continuing on with Cicero’s On Fate, which we also read bits of in the seminar. It certainly gives a more contextualized and detailed account of Roman religion. I used to be irked when people claimed that the Romans simply ‘copied� the Greek gods and just changed a few names around, but I’m liable to be even more aggravated now that I realize just how foolish of a claim that is.
Perhaps the most contentious thing about this dialogue is the ending, so ‘spoiler alert�, if you care about that here� There may be some credence to the idea that Cotta was a replacement for Cicero’s character, and he was concerned with offending public sensibility by speaking against the gods (either their existence, or divine providence, which is a huge aspect of Roman religious culture). It is unfortunate that large sections of Cotta’s refutations are missing, especially related to these topics. But we still have a lot of extant material, including a fun digression on how there are many different variations of ‘Jupiters�, ‘Minervas�, ‘Dionysuses�, etc. Does Cicero actually find the Stoic account more probabile, or is he just trying to placate his Roman readers? It’s well worth reading this dialogue to explore both arguments for yourself and learn a lot about Roman attitudes towards the gods. This book makes me feel like a small speck of dust in the universe, but in an awe-inspiring way.
I will include a few (but non-exhaustive) of my favorite quotes (from Walsh’s translation) below.
I alternatively read the Walsh and Rackham editions of this along with the Latin. I do think Walsh’s translation is well-done and quite accessible to the average reader (if there is such a thing for this kind of work). Walsh includes a ridiculous amount of footnotes for every reference, so fear not if you have no clue about ancient religion or ancient historical figures.
As in the other Cicero text I looked at, the explanation of Stoic theology, and especially of the rational ordering of the cosmos, were my favorite parts from Book 2. (I’m not going to get into Velleius or the Epicurean arguments here, as I much prefer Lucretius’s account. Velleius leaves a much less favorable impression.) There is some important discussion on the driving force of the world, pneuma, and how one can find hints of the divine spread throughout everything in the cosmos. The dialogue is also very revealing about Roman attitudes towards religion, and how significant the state’s cultivation and use of religion was in promoting its image and engaging with the populace.
Even though I’m an atheist, reading this was beautiful. There is something to be said about the appeal of the Stoic rationally ordered cosmos. I had an extremely emotionally compelling experience recently looking up at the night sky on my walk home, and being able to see so many stores on a clear night is breathtaking no matter how many times you do it. This feeling of being interconnected with the universe, and perhaps even with the very figures that are speaking in this dialogue, is a great quirk of human existence.
There are also some fascinating arguments presented in the dialogue, both by Balbus (the Stoic spokesman) and later Cotta (the Academic Skeptic). There is a proto-watchmaker argument given by Balbus in defense of the divine creation of the world, and even a proto-ontological argument like Anselm’s. Cotta in his refutation even points out the classic problem of evil dilemma. There is even something like the infinite monkey theorem. An entire section in Book 2 deals with astronomy and the detail contained therein is astounding; the geocentric view is completely false, of course, but so many other things were ‘right�. It’s quite sensible and yet surprising that such arguments have a long and storied history. There is also a fair bit said about divine providence, which lends itself well to continuing on with Cicero’s On Fate, which we also read bits of in the seminar. It certainly gives a more contextualized and detailed account of Roman religion. I used to be irked when people claimed that the Romans simply ‘copied� the Greek gods and just changed a few names around, but I’m liable to be even more aggravated now that I realize just how foolish of a claim that is.
Perhaps the most contentious thing about this dialogue is the ending, so ‘spoiler alert�, if you care about that here� There may be some credence to the idea that Cotta was a replacement for Cicero’s character, and he was concerned with offending public sensibility by speaking against the gods (either their existence, or divine providence, which is a huge aspect of Roman religious culture). It is unfortunate that large sections of Cotta’s refutations are missing, especially related to these topics. But we still have a lot of extant material, including a fun digression on how there are many different variations of ‘Jupiters�, ‘Minervas�, ‘Dionysuses�, etc. Does Cicero actually find the Stoic account more probabile, or is he just trying to placate his Roman readers? It’s well worth reading this dialogue to explore both arguments for yourself and learn a lot about Roman attitudes towards the gods. This book makes me feel like a small speck of dust in the universe, but in an awe-inspiring way.
I will include a few (but non-exhaustive) of my favorite quotes (from Walsh’s translation) below.
‘How splendid it would be, Velleius, if you were to admit ignorance of what you do not know, rather than puking and feeling disgust with yourself for uttering such balderdash!�
‘The gods reveal signs of future events, and if individuals go astray in interpreting these, the fault lies not with the nature of the gods but with the inferences made by humans.�
‘Man has emerged for the contemplation and imitation of the universe; though he is in no way perfect, in a sense he is a fragment of perfection.�
‘To turn now to our fundamental possessions of mind, intelligence, reason, prudence, and wisdom, any person who does not realize that these have been brought to perfection by divine supervision seems to me to lack those very qualities.�
‘Either God wishes to remove evils and cannot, or he can do so and is unwilling, or he has neither the will nor the power, or he has both the will and the power. If he has the will but not the power, he is a weakling, and this is not characteristic of God. If he has the power but not the will, he is grudging, and this is a trait equally foreign to God. If he has neither the will nor the power, he is both grudging and weak, and is therefore not divine. If he has both the will and the power (and this is the sole circumstance appropriate to God), what is the source of evils, or why does God not dispel them?�
‘This attitude is surely justified, for we ourselves rightly gain praise for virtue, and we rightly take pride in it. This would not be the case if we obtained it as a gift from God, and if it did not emanate from ourselves. On the other hand, if we gain distinctions or family property, or if we obtain some other unlooked-for blessing, or shrug off some misfortune, we then thank the gods, and we believe that nothing has accrued to our own praise. Did anyone, I ask, ever thank the gods for being a good person?�
‘Whether poets have corrupted Stoics, or Stoics have lent their authority to poets, I can not readily say, for both groups recount marvels and monstrous deeds.�
(The following are some quotes from Walsh’s introduction.)
‘In contrast to the Greek literary depiction of gods as fallible human beings writ large, the Roman deities are impersonal and remote.�
‘Behind all this ceremonial lies the fundamental fact that Roman religion was a bargaining religion. Roman commanders in the field vowed public thanksgivings and shrines provided that victory was granted them. The characteristic formula in ceremonial prayer is: “If you deities duly lend your aid, we in return will reward you.”�
‘In describing this atmospheric current of fire which pervades the world, the Stoics alternate between scientific and religious language; at one time they call it fiery breath, and at another the divine element, or Providence, or Reason, or Destiny, or Necessity.�
March 7, 2012
On the Nature of the Gods is a philosophical dialogue by the Roman orator Cicero written in 45 BC. It is laid out in three "books", each of which discusses the theology of different Roman and Greek philosophers. The dialogue uses Stoic, Epicurean, and skeptical theories to examine fundamental questions of theology.
The dialogue is on the whole narrated by Cicero himself, though he doesn't play an active part in the discussion. Gaius Velleius represents the Epicurean school, Quintius Lucilius Balbus argues for the Stoics, and Gaius Cotta speaks for Cicero's own Academic skepticism. The first book of the dialogue contains Cicero's introduction, Velleius' case for the Epicurean theology and Cotta's criticism of Epicureanism. Book II focuses on Balbus' explanation and defense of Stoic theology. Book III lays out Cotta's criticism of Balbus' claims. This work, alongside Cicero's De Officiis and De Divinatione was highly influential on the philosophers of the 18th century: Voltaire called it "(...) perhaps the best book of all antiquity".
I didn't think there was anything mind blowing in here, but it's a nice introduction to three of the most important philosophical schools of antiquity (stoicism, epicureanism, and skepticism). 3 stars.
The dialogue is on the whole narrated by Cicero himself, though he doesn't play an active part in the discussion. Gaius Velleius represents the Epicurean school, Quintius Lucilius Balbus argues for the Stoics, and Gaius Cotta speaks for Cicero's own Academic skepticism. The first book of the dialogue contains Cicero's introduction, Velleius' case for the Epicurean theology and Cotta's criticism of Epicureanism. Book II focuses on Balbus' explanation and defense of Stoic theology. Book III lays out Cotta's criticism of Balbus' claims. This work, alongside Cicero's De Officiis and De Divinatione was highly influential on the philosophers of the 18th century: Voltaire called it "(...) perhaps the best book of all antiquity".
I didn't think there was anything mind blowing in here, but it's a nice introduction to three of the most important philosophical schools of antiquity (stoicism, epicureanism, and skepticism). 3 stars.
April 23, 2021
Pocas veces tenemos al alcance un libro como está, que resiste no sólo el tiempo, sino el paso de ideologías, filosofías y demás.
Marco Tulio Cicerón, nos ofrece un texto extraordinariamente lucido, a la vez que vivo y actual más de dos mil años después de hacer sido escrito
Las mismas preguntas de Cicerón son de aplicación hoy, las mismas ideas son incluso aún más relevantes vistas à la luz del siglo XXI, y su discurso, magníficamente hilado y merecedor de varias lecturas, permite darnos cuenta de cuán poco hemos cambiado y de cuánto hemos cambiado.
Personalmente creo que es un texto que se podrá leer hoy, mañana y aún dentro de mil años, y que por mi lado, incluyo en la lista de libros a ser leídos recurrentemente.
Cierro el comentario animando a su lectura, pero provistos de una mente abierta y dialogante. Todo aquél que se acerque a este libro desde una posición inmóvil, desde el fanatismo ( cualquiera de ellos), o desde " el conocimiento de la verdad", no encontrará sino un libro antiguo con historias antiguas.
Marco Tulio Cicerón, nos ofrece un texto extraordinariamente lucido, a la vez que vivo y actual más de dos mil años después de hacer sido escrito
Las mismas preguntas de Cicerón son de aplicación hoy, las mismas ideas son incluso aún más relevantes vistas à la luz del siglo XXI, y su discurso, magníficamente hilado y merecedor de varias lecturas, permite darnos cuenta de cuán poco hemos cambiado y de cuánto hemos cambiado.
Personalmente creo que es un texto que se podrá leer hoy, mañana y aún dentro de mil años, y que por mi lado, incluyo en la lista de libros a ser leídos recurrentemente.
Cierro el comentario animando a su lectura, pero provistos de una mente abierta y dialogante. Todo aquél que se acerque a este libro desde una posición inmóvil, desde el fanatismo ( cualquiera de ellos), o desde " el conocimiento de la verdad", no encontrará sino un libro antiguo con historias antiguas.
August 13, 2018
Cicero tried to popularise Greek theology and philosophy. Lots of astronomy and anatomy, so partly is a cyclopaedia as well. Plato elements are well represented and lots of evidence and argumentation of intelligent design and God.
November 4, 2023
Cotta wins the argument but fails to convince our author.
July 9, 2024
Loosely structured as a dialogue, The Nature of the Gods is an exposition of the metaphysics of the Epicurean (founded by Epicurus), Stoic (founded by Zeno), and Academic (founded by Plato) schools of philosophy at the time of the Roman Late Republic. Cicero is uniquely suited to this study: as a young man he was an Epicurean, was then for some time a Stoic, but for much of his life found the most satisfactory approach to fundamental questions in the Academy.
The metaphysics discussed include the nature of being: is existence infinite in time, or did it spontaneously come into being, or was it created from nothing by a god, or was it shaped from preexisting chaos by a demiurge? Are there gods at all, or is there one god, are there many gods with powers of their own, or are the many gods simply aspects of one god? What role does god, or do the many gods, play in human life? Are they involved, do they care? Are they benevolent, indifferent, or malignant? Are all entities and events predetermined; are humans bound by fate; do humans have real choice?
Cicero has not written a history. He has lived these schools of thought; he learned from the leading philosophers of this time; he was one of them and he talked about these things with his friends. That this is a contemporary account of philosophical thinking in Rome at a crucial time in its history makes this especially interesting to me. No one has answers to these foundational questions about existence and humanity but we must keep asking them, and we must try to understand as best we can how others in other times pondered them.
Others will say, "Why ask questions for which there is no answer?" I submit that these may be the most important questions of all because seeking is in itself a truly human thing. It is the antidote to merely accepting “received and revealed truth.�
The metaphysics discussed include the nature of being: is existence infinite in time, or did it spontaneously come into being, or was it created from nothing by a god, or was it shaped from preexisting chaos by a demiurge? Are there gods at all, or is there one god, are there many gods with powers of their own, or are the many gods simply aspects of one god? What role does god, or do the many gods, play in human life? Are they involved, do they care? Are they benevolent, indifferent, or malignant? Are all entities and events predetermined; are humans bound by fate; do humans have real choice?
Cicero has not written a history. He has lived these schools of thought; he learned from the leading philosophers of this time; he was one of them and he talked about these things with his friends. That this is a contemporary account of philosophical thinking in Rome at a crucial time in its history makes this especially interesting to me. No one has answers to these foundational questions about existence and humanity but we must keep asking them, and we must try to understand as best we can how others in other times pondered them.
Others will say, "Why ask questions for which there is no answer?" I submit that these may be the most important questions of all because seeking is in itself a truly human thing. It is the antidote to merely accepting “received and revealed truth.�
August 31, 2018
Una bellissima riflessione antica (scritta ottimamente) che può aiutare anche oggi a riflettere sulle motivazioni in base alle quali crediamo in Dio. Consigliata a tutti coloro che hanno facili certezze.
September 29, 2023
for one moment i thought i would start to believe in gods :')
November 4, 2023
Really interesting how a lot of the debates we have around God(s) are articulated in this book from the 1st century BC. Well worn arguments like the argument from design and the problem of evil are given fresh appeal.
July 15, 2024
I think I'll stick with Cicero's letters (which I really enjoy). For the most part this just didn't work for me.
April 1, 2025
Kinda wish I was still in uni so I could discuss this in class.
February 9, 2025
Premetto di aver letto la traduzione di Andrea Rossi (edita Edizioni Ester), e ci tengo a precisare che ho letto questo libro solo per curiosità personale (non ho mai studiato lettere classiche).
Proprio per questo, desidero partire dicendo che l'introduzione di Andrea Rossi è stata a dir poco illuminante: il quadro storico (e biografico) è presentato in maniera chiara, il che permette al lettore, indipendentemente dal livello di conoscenza della letteratura latina, di approcciarsi a questo testo con maggiore consapevolezza.
Detto ciò, il testo vero e proprio sembra essere tradotto coerentemente ed è di facile comprensione. L'unica pecca, forse, è l'assenza del testo latino a fronte, utile per chi studia le lingue classiche e per chi desidera fare un paragone tra termini tradotti e originali.
Proprio per questo, desidero partire dicendo che l'introduzione di Andrea Rossi è stata a dir poco illuminante: il quadro storico (e biografico) è presentato in maniera chiara, il che permette al lettore, indipendentemente dal livello di conoscenza della letteratura latina, di approcciarsi a questo testo con maggiore consapevolezza.
Detto ciò, il testo vero e proprio sembra essere tradotto coerentemente ed è di facile comprensione. L'unica pecca, forse, è l'assenza del testo latino a fronte, utile per chi studia le lingue classiche e per chi desidera fare un paragone tra termini tradotti e originali.
May 9, 2024
A good source for theological/cosmological beliefs of the three major philosophical schools (stoic, epicurean, and skeptic) of late Republican Rome.
March 18, 2022
An invaluable source of information on ancient ideas about religion and the philosophical controversies they engendered. The work discuss the theological views of the Hellenistic philosophies of Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Academic Skepticism.
The dialogue is on the whole narrated by Cicero himself, though he does not play an active part in the discussion. Gaius Velleius represents the Epicurean school, Quintus Lucilius Balbus argues for the Stoics, and Gaius Cotta speaks for Cicero's own Academic Skepticism. The first book of the dialogue contains Cicero's introduction, Velleius' case for the Epicurean theology and Cotta's criticism of Epicureanism. Book II focuses on Balbus' explanation and defense of Stoic theology. Book III lays out Cotta's criticism of Balbus' claims. Cicero's conclusions are ambivalent and muted, "a strategy of civilized openness"; he does, however, conclude that Balbus' claims, in his mind, more nearly approximate the truth.
The dialogue is on the whole narrated by Cicero himself, though he does not play an active part in the discussion. Gaius Velleius represents the Epicurean school, Quintus Lucilius Balbus argues for the Stoics, and Gaius Cotta speaks for Cicero's own Academic Skepticism. The first book of the dialogue contains Cicero's introduction, Velleius' case for the Epicurean theology and Cotta's criticism of Epicureanism. Book II focuses on Balbus' explanation and defense of Stoic theology. Book III lays out Cotta's criticism of Balbus' claims. Cicero's conclusions are ambivalent and muted, "a strategy of civilized openness"; he does, however, conclude that Balbus' claims, in his mind, more nearly approximate the truth.
November 23, 2015
The format of the book is that of a group discussion between the representatives of the three major religious philosophies of the day. Each representative puts forward his viewpoint, and there are question-and-answer sessions. What I found most interesting was the lack of theological sophistication present in the debate. The Epicurean, for example, goes as close to atheism as he dares, while the State-sanctioned commentary on the gods was merely empty pious talk. It seems clear that by this time Ancient Rome had run out of ideas, or more accurately had borrowed all its thinking from the Greeks without managing to make the ideas of the Greeks fully their own. A comparison between this exposition and, say, the Learned Ignorance treatise of Nicholas of Cusa, goes to show just how shabby and second-rate was the theology of Cicero's contemporaries. The Ancient Romans were superb engineers, military strategists and empire builders, but theologians they were not.
May 26, 2023
O ünlü "Kitapsız oda, ruhsuz beden gibidir." deyişinin de sahibi antik Romalı devlet hukukçusu Cicero'nun; siyasetten uzaklaşıp tefekküre daldığı zamanlarda Sezar'ın evlatlığı Brütüs'ün eğitimi için yazdığı bu din, felsefe ve bilim üzerine triyalog eser, üç adet ekolün; Akademia, Epikür ve Stoa okullarının görüşleri üzerinde dönüyor. Belirli bir sonuca varılıyor mu? Tabi ki hayır... Çünkü kitapta Cicero'nun ileride hayatına da mal olacak şekilde çokça savunduğu laik çoğulculuk hukuku çerçevesinde; devrin en baskın ve zıt görüşlerin diyalektikleri yansıtılmaya çalışılmış sadece. Bu arada o devirde Cicero'nun da takip ettiği Akademia; kurucusu Platon'un ruhani görüşlerinden uzaklaşıp skeptik (şüpheci) olmuş. Stoa ekolü ile kastedilen ise Roma Cumhuriyeti'nin resmi dini ideolojisi olan, Kıbrıslı Zenon'un birey, aile ve kurumsal ahlak öğretileriyle bezeli Yunan'dan devşirme çok tanrıcılık. Epikür ekolündekiler ise hazcı ve tanrıtanımazlar; her şeyin atomlardan oluştuğunu bunun dışında bir şey olsa da pek etkili olamayacağını; doğanın, hayatın ve dolayısıyla güzelliğin geçici olduğunu savunuyorlar. Bu arada kitapta; Aristoteles'in Peripatetik ekolü, Stoa ile aşağı yukarı bir tutulduğu için o görüşten birinin tartışmaya çağrılmasına gerek duyulmadığı da geçiyor fakat Stoa ekolünün önderi Peripatos okulunu kendilerinin daha sığ hali olarak buluyor. Fakat bunu daha fazla tartışmaya açmıyorlar.
Cicero böylelikle kendi özel mülkünde, avama kesinlikle kapalı olarak, üç felsefe öğretisinin üç önderini ağırlayarak tartışmayı başlatıyor ve hakemliği altında fikirlerin özgürce dile getirilmesini sağlıyor. Kitabın girişini böyle ayarlamış çünkü dini altüst edecek denli birçok şey söylerken, bunların açıktan açığa tartışılmaması gerektiğini de düşünüyordu, böyle bir tartışma; kurallarını devletin saptadığı din kurumuna zarar verirdi. Ayrıca Cicero insanların taptıkları şeylerin işe yaramaz nesneler olduğunu da anlıyordu. Her şeyin kaynağını aldığı "arkhe" yani ana maddenin tanrısal öngörüyle yaratılma olasılığının bulunmadığını, o ana maddenin ancak kendi gücü ve doğası ile varolduğunu savunuyordu. Epikür öğretisinin atomculuğuna uyduğu ve Stoa ekolünde yoktan var etmeye değinilmeden yaratılışa biçimsel yaklaşıldığı için Cicero'ya katılıyorlar. Fakat Akademia önderi; inanmak için olabildiğince geç, sorgulamak için olabildiğince erken davranılmalı diskuruyla her savunulanı çürütmeye çalışıyor zira düşünmeden varılan bir sonuçtan daha utanç verici ne vardır?
Epikür ekolü önderi; insan biçimi tüm canlıların biçimlerinden üstünse, öte yandan tanrı da canlıysa, tanrı elbette bütün biçimlerin en güzeli olan insan biçiminde olmalıdırı savunurken; Stoa ekolü, Dünya da dahil üstün form olan küre şeklindeki tüm gezegenleri birer Tanrı olarak gördüğü için bu görüşü fazla antropomorfik buluyor. Akademia önderi oysa "arkhe"ye biçim vererek yaratma olayını bile fazla insan biçimci görüyor ve Tanrıların sayıca çok olmasını da doğru bulmuyor. Birinin sadece beş duyuya diğerininse hazza hitap eden görüşlerinin aşılması gereken görüşler olduğunu belirtiyor. Bir de tüm ölümlülerin Tanrıdan sadece şans dilemeleri gerektiğini, erdem ve bilgelik için yalnız kendi çabalarıyla yol kat edebileceklerini savlıyor. Dönemin Tanrılarının çok olması aslında Cicero ve diğer felsefi önderlerdeki eski çağlardaki beklenmeyen laik tutum ve alışkanlıkların da lehine bir etken olmalı. Roma'da her fetihten sonra fethedilen bölge halkının inanışları resmi dine ilave ediliyor. Laisizm eklektik bir din anlayışı ile sağlanmaya çalışılırken, zamanın teolojisi akıldan çok inanç kulvarında kalarak din ile bilim arasındaki ayırım resmen daha belirgin hale geliyormuş. (ta ki ortaçağa dek...)
Cicero, cumhuriyetçi yoldaşı Sezar'ın, Firavun Kleopatra etkisinde diktatör olup yoldan çıkmasıyla, daha monarşik hale gelen siyasete bir süre küsüyor. İşte bu arada, eski Yunan filozofların eserleri tarzında Latince eserler oluşturma planını hayata geçirebiliyor. Sezar'ın, Brütüs'ün bile bizzat dahil olduğu suikastından sonra Kleopatra'nın bu sefer Sezar'ın ardılı Antonius'u yoldan çıkarıp senatoya kafa tutturması üzerine Cicero, rakipleri Octavian'a destek veriyor. Fakat bu destekle edindiği yetkilerle Octavian, Roma'yı Cumhuriyetlikten çıkarıp imparatorluk yapma yolunda selefi Sezar gibi olmayı seçiyor hatta Antonius ile "triumvir" ittifakı oluşturarak tüm Cumhuriyetçileri kara listeye alıyor. Hatta hatta, Cicero'yu Antonius'a idam ettiriyor. Sonra bilindiği üzere Octavian Antonius'u Kleopatra ile birlikte toptan bertaraf edip kendisi tek adam rejimini yani Roma İmparatorluğunu kuruyor.Bu noktada; tarihin tekerrür etmemesi için bu tarz kişisel eserlerle insani kalitenin ne tarafta olduğunun anlaşılması bakımından da konuya eğilmenin ciddiyetini vurgulamak gerçekten gerekli!
David Hume'un 17 yüzyıl sonra kaleme alacağı "Doğal Din Üzerine Söyleşiler" kitabının da esin kaynağı olan "Tanrıların Doğası" kitabı, takipçisine göre bir hayli geniş kapsamlı ve oldukça heyecanlı kalıyor açıkçası fakat Hume daha odaklı ve gramer olarak daha derin. Ama sonuçta ikisi de aydınlanma yolunda birer mihenk taşı.
Cicero böylelikle kendi özel mülkünde, avama kesinlikle kapalı olarak, üç felsefe öğretisinin üç önderini ağırlayarak tartışmayı başlatıyor ve hakemliği altında fikirlerin özgürce dile getirilmesini sağlıyor. Kitabın girişini böyle ayarlamış çünkü dini altüst edecek denli birçok şey söylerken, bunların açıktan açığa tartışılmaması gerektiğini de düşünüyordu, böyle bir tartışma; kurallarını devletin saptadığı din kurumuna zarar verirdi. Ayrıca Cicero insanların taptıkları şeylerin işe yaramaz nesneler olduğunu da anlıyordu. Her şeyin kaynağını aldığı "arkhe" yani ana maddenin tanrısal öngörüyle yaratılma olasılığının bulunmadığını, o ana maddenin ancak kendi gücü ve doğası ile varolduğunu savunuyordu. Epikür öğretisinin atomculuğuna uyduğu ve Stoa ekolünde yoktan var etmeye değinilmeden yaratılışa biçimsel yaklaşıldığı için Cicero'ya katılıyorlar. Fakat Akademia önderi; inanmak için olabildiğince geç, sorgulamak için olabildiğince erken davranılmalı diskuruyla her savunulanı çürütmeye çalışıyor zira düşünmeden varılan bir sonuçtan daha utanç verici ne vardır?
Epikür ekolü önderi; insan biçimi tüm canlıların biçimlerinden üstünse, öte yandan tanrı da canlıysa, tanrı elbette bütün biçimlerin en güzeli olan insan biçiminde olmalıdırı savunurken; Stoa ekolü, Dünya da dahil üstün form olan küre şeklindeki tüm gezegenleri birer Tanrı olarak gördüğü için bu görüşü fazla antropomorfik buluyor. Akademia önderi oysa "arkhe"ye biçim vererek yaratma olayını bile fazla insan biçimci görüyor ve Tanrıların sayıca çok olmasını da doğru bulmuyor. Birinin sadece beş duyuya diğerininse hazza hitap eden görüşlerinin aşılması gereken görüşler olduğunu belirtiyor. Bir de tüm ölümlülerin Tanrıdan sadece şans dilemeleri gerektiğini, erdem ve bilgelik için yalnız kendi çabalarıyla yol kat edebileceklerini savlıyor. Dönemin Tanrılarının çok olması aslında Cicero ve diğer felsefi önderlerdeki eski çağlardaki beklenmeyen laik tutum ve alışkanlıkların da lehine bir etken olmalı. Roma'da her fetihten sonra fethedilen bölge halkının inanışları resmi dine ilave ediliyor. Laisizm eklektik bir din anlayışı ile sağlanmaya çalışılırken, zamanın teolojisi akıldan çok inanç kulvarında kalarak din ile bilim arasındaki ayırım resmen daha belirgin hale geliyormuş. (ta ki ortaçağa dek...)
Cicero, cumhuriyetçi yoldaşı Sezar'ın, Firavun Kleopatra etkisinde diktatör olup yoldan çıkmasıyla, daha monarşik hale gelen siyasete bir süre küsüyor. İşte bu arada, eski Yunan filozofların eserleri tarzında Latince eserler oluşturma planını hayata geçirebiliyor. Sezar'ın, Brütüs'ün bile bizzat dahil olduğu suikastından sonra Kleopatra'nın bu sefer Sezar'ın ardılı Antonius'u yoldan çıkarıp senatoya kafa tutturması üzerine Cicero, rakipleri Octavian'a destek veriyor. Fakat bu destekle edindiği yetkilerle Octavian, Roma'yı Cumhuriyetlikten çıkarıp imparatorluk yapma yolunda selefi Sezar gibi olmayı seçiyor hatta Antonius ile "triumvir" ittifakı oluşturarak tüm Cumhuriyetçileri kara listeye alıyor. Hatta hatta, Cicero'yu Antonius'a idam ettiriyor. Sonra bilindiği üzere Octavian Antonius'u Kleopatra ile birlikte toptan bertaraf edip kendisi tek adam rejimini yani Roma İmparatorluğunu kuruyor.Bu noktada; tarihin tekerrür etmemesi için bu tarz kişisel eserlerle insani kalitenin ne tarafta olduğunun anlaşılması bakımından da konuya eğilmenin ciddiyetini vurgulamak gerçekten gerekli!
David Hume'un 17 yüzyıl sonra kaleme alacağı "Doğal Din Üzerine Söyleşiler" kitabının da esin kaynağı olan "Tanrıların Doğası" kitabı, takipçisine göre bir hayli geniş kapsamlı ve oldukça heyecanlı kalıyor açıkçası fakat Hume daha odaklı ve gramer olarak daha derin. Ama sonuçta ikisi de aydınlanma yolunda birer mihenk taşı.
June 26, 2022
Provides insight into the theological arguments of Greek philosophical schools. Provides perspective on how religion was generally viewed by Roman intellectuals. The reasoning is at points extremely dated, as can be found in Cicero's other works (where less of the blame can be placed on his Greek sources).
We take for granted how much of our lucidity of thought we owe to the thinkers of the renaissance and their successors. Millennia of history have given us a vantage over affairs never attainable by the Romans, who lacked all but the most rudimentary scientific and social theory.
Politically though, Cicero has less of an excuse. He must have realized that for decades Rome had been tumbling into chaos, but I know of no record suggesting that he questioned the integrity of the Republican system or, alternatively, the social context that existed around it.
In his 'Republic' Cicero writes truly that the best form of government is not one or another "natural" system, however rationalized by elaborate sophistry, but simply whichever system best manages the "public property" (which presumably includes the public morals and social well-being). Like Greek political philosophers before him he writes that all political systems are susceptible to corruption, and that the cause of the corruption is an absence of virtue in the person or people who make decisions (be it a mob electorate, greedy nobles, or a despotic king).
Cicero's (political) antagonism to Julius and Augustus was, i assume, based on the assumption that the Roman system, due to its "hybrid" structure, was better able to manage the "public property" than a questionably virtuous despot. But his confidence in the Republic ought to have been undermined by the obvious fact that the miserable thing was in the process of collapsing from under itself, in vitriolic spite of its own unrivalled invincibility.
Augustus ultimately refuted the republicans with his peaceful reign, but alas Livy wrote true when he belittled the glory of Alexander on the grounds that the genius of a single man is worth far less than reliable, but mere, quality maintained over successive generations of leaders.
But, back to the relevant work, it can be tedious. He did not need to go into such elaborate detail regarding biology and astrology, a couple examples would have sufficed.
tldr: flawed but worth reading for anyone interested in Rome and Cicero.
We take for granted how much of our lucidity of thought we owe to the thinkers of the renaissance and their successors. Millennia of history have given us a vantage over affairs never attainable by the Romans, who lacked all but the most rudimentary scientific and social theory.
Politically though, Cicero has less of an excuse. He must have realized that for decades Rome had been tumbling into chaos, but I know of no record suggesting that he questioned the integrity of the Republican system or, alternatively, the social context that existed around it.
In his 'Republic' Cicero writes truly that the best form of government is not one or another "natural" system, however rationalized by elaborate sophistry, but simply whichever system best manages the "public property" (which presumably includes the public morals and social well-being). Like Greek political philosophers before him he writes that all political systems are susceptible to corruption, and that the cause of the corruption is an absence of virtue in the person or people who make decisions (be it a mob electorate, greedy nobles, or a despotic king).
Cicero's (political) antagonism to Julius and Augustus was, i assume, based on the assumption that the Roman system, due to its "hybrid" structure, was better able to manage the "public property" than a questionably virtuous despot. But his confidence in the Republic ought to have been undermined by the obvious fact that the miserable thing was in the process of collapsing from under itself, in vitriolic spite of its own unrivalled invincibility.
Augustus ultimately refuted the republicans with his peaceful reign, but alas Livy wrote true when he belittled the glory of Alexander on the grounds that the genius of a single man is worth far less than reliable, but mere, quality maintained over successive generations of leaders.
But, back to the relevant work, it can be tedious. He did not need to go into such elaborate detail regarding biology and astrology, a couple examples would have sufficed.
tldr: flawed but worth reading for anyone interested in Rome and Cicero.
October 30, 2021
I often have trouble reading non-literary writings from antiquity. With the benefit of centuries of human thought, the logical holes in the arguments are clear. Additionally, writing styles have changed, and while some of that can be chalked up to people being accustomed to writing in their own time and age, I think there have been legitimate strides in how to structure prose to emphasize clarity of argument and to bring important points to the forefront.
The format of is a debate between individuals over Stoic and Epicurean philosophy. But each speaker goes on for pages at a time, and in the middle of their arguments they tend to veer off onto tangents where they list facts, historical figures, and citations from other works. (The introductory note suggests that this may be Cicero trying to show off his knowledge.) Book I starts off with not very coherent Epicurean arguments about the gods, followed by a wiser speaker poking holes in these not very coherent arguments; Books II and III do the same for the Stoics. At least to a modern reader with the benefit of centuries more of scientific discovery, these debates don’t have the feel of good faith, as the arguments seem too clearly set up to be knocked over by the rebuttals.
But I can appreciate this book’s historic importance, and the rebuttals are perhaps modern for their time, striking me as fairly skeptical and anti-religious. We spend some time with notions such as the ill-defined nature of “perfection,� theodicy, and the insensibility of projecting human ideas and behaviors onto a supreme being; I suppose that even today these aren’t properly thought through by many people.
I’d like to compliment the introduction in my edition, written by J. M. Ross, who gives a clear, readable, and very helpful summary of the historical philosophical context and of Cicero’s life, and avoids fawning too much over the text, as introductions to the great classics sometimes do. I consider introductions and afterwords part and parcel of the books I read, and I think without it I’d rate a star down.
The format of is a debate between individuals over Stoic and Epicurean philosophy. But each speaker goes on for pages at a time, and in the middle of their arguments they tend to veer off onto tangents where they list facts, historical figures, and citations from other works. (The introductory note suggests that this may be Cicero trying to show off his knowledge.) Book I starts off with not very coherent Epicurean arguments about the gods, followed by a wiser speaker poking holes in these not very coherent arguments; Books II and III do the same for the Stoics. At least to a modern reader with the benefit of centuries more of scientific discovery, these debates don’t have the feel of good faith, as the arguments seem too clearly set up to be knocked over by the rebuttals.
But I can appreciate this book’s historic importance, and the rebuttals are perhaps modern for their time, striking me as fairly skeptical and anti-religious. We spend some time with notions such as the ill-defined nature of “perfection,� theodicy, and the insensibility of projecting human ideas and behaviors onto a supreme being; I suppose that even today these aren’t properly thought through by many people.
I’d like to compliment the introduction in my edition, written by J. M. Ross, who gives a clear, readable, and very helpful summary of the historical philosophical context and of Cicero’s life, and avoids fawning too much over the text, as introductions to the great classics sometimes do. I consider introductions and afterwords part and parcel of the books I read, and I think without it I’d rate a star down.
June 23, 2024
Cicero examines theology. Regular Romans consider Jupiter to be a handsome bearded man who lives in the sky and bestows boons on those who give him acceptable sacrifices, and they're fine with that. Cicero goes beyond that to explore the nature of religion and the philosophical origins of the gods.
In the first book an Epicurean explains the gods. All things in nature give off atoms which are exposed to the senses, so we see rocks and trees and bagels. The gods are made up of immaterial atoms which bypass the senses and impress directly upon the mind. That is why all people have an innate image of the gods as people, and that is proof of their existence. The gods have bodies but are unconcerned with anything, spending their time reveling in their perfect virtue and amazingness. Cicero's Stoic spokesman tears apart this thesis, wondering why gods have bodies at all if they do nothing but sit around doing nothing.
The second book gives the Stoic view of the gods. His view is that god is nature and gives a long explanation of Intelligent Design. The gods must exist as evidenced by the perfection of the universe, by the circuit of the stars, the life cycles of animals and men. They clearly have interest in the world as seen by their intervention in the lives of many prominent Romans. They are not bearded men living in castles in the sky but are self-aware ideals mostly, the legends associated with them are humans attempts to explain them in human terms.
Cicero's Academician spokesman disagrees but is not so harsh in his disagreement. He gives many examples as to how this theology is deficient but does not reject it out of hand. The third book is lost so we do not know what his ultimate ideal of the gods would be.
As usual we play the drinking game where we wait to see how long Cicero can go before he mentions how when Consul he had saved the Republic during the Cataline conspiracy. Spoiler:
In the first book an Epicurean explains the gods. All things in nature give off atoms which are exposed to the senses, so we see rocks and trees and bagels. The gods are made up of immaterial atoms which bypass the senses and impress directly upon the mind. That is why all people have an innate image of the gods as people, and that is proof of their existence. The gods have bodies but are unconcerned with anything, spending their time reveling in their perfect virtue and amazingness. Cicero's Stoic spokesman tears apart this thesis, wondering why gods have bodies at all if they do nothing but sit around doing nothing.
The second book gives the Stoic view of the gods. His view is that god is nature and gives a long explanation of Intelligent Design. The gods must exist as evidenced by the perfection of the universe, by the circuit of the stars, the life cycles of animals and men. They clearly have interest in the world as seen by their intervention in the lives of many prominent Romans. They are not bearded men living in castles in the sky but are self-aware ideals mostly, the legends associated with them are humans attempts to explain them in human terms.
Cicero's Academician spokesman disagrees but is not so harsh in his disagreement. He gives many examples as to how this theology is deficient but does not reject it out of hand. The third book is lost so we do not know what his ultimate ideal of the gods would be.
As usual we play the drinking game where we wait to see how long Cicero can go before he mentions how when Consul he had saved the Republic during the Cataline conspiracy. Spoiler:
October 28, 2023
Cicero's "The Nature of the Gods" is divided into three books: the first explains and critiques the Epicurean system, the second covers the Stoics, and the third covers criticisms of the Stoics. This book is foundational to the history of the philosophy of religion. It starts by acknowledging the varied opinions that humans have regarding the gods - "the nature of the gods, the noblest of studies for the human mind to grasp, and one vital for the regulation of religious observance. On this question, the pronouncements of highly learned men are so varied and so much at odds with each other."
With that introduction, you would think that Cicero would carefully parse various beliefs and arguments until coming up with his own conclusions regarding the matter. But the focus here is rather on philosophically critiquing beliefs regarding the existence and nature of gods and whether they care for us than on drawing strong and clear conclusions. At the end, Cicero seems to lean more towards the Stoics (though he hasn't satisfactorily responded to all arguments against the Stoics). But mostly, Cicero seems to conclude that skepticism in religious matters is warranted and that such skepticism helps us to avoid superstition and dogmatism while suspending judgment on matters related to the gods still allows for religious practice to flourish.
An interesting book with clear questions and critiques that religious skeptics and believers alike can benefit from and a thought-provoking read.
With that introduction, you would think that Cicero would carefully parse various beliefs and arguments until coming up with his own conclusions regarding the matter. But the focus here is rather on philosophically critiquing beliefs regarding the existence and nature of gods and whether they care for us than on drawing strong and clear conclusions. At the end, Cicero seems to lean more towards the Stoics (though he hasn't satisfactorily responded to all arguments against the Stoics). But mostly, Cicero seems to conclude that skepticism in religious matters is warranted and that such skepticism helps us to avoid superstition and dogmatism while suspending judgment on matters related to the gods still allows for religious practice to flourish.
An interesting book with clear questions and critiques that religious skeptics and believers alike can benefit from and a thought-provoking read.
Read
October 20, 2020What you’ll learn from this book has less to do with the subject matter itself—the nature of God(s), the cosmos, and well, nature itself—and more with the philosophical fistfights between the Stoics and the Epicureans. The two take turns in arguing the existence of God(s) and the interest and influence they have over our lives: by discussing this, they give insight into their understanding of the natural world and what questions kept intellectuals busy in a world without microscopes.
I read this book for a philosophy class on Stoicism, but ironically it made me more curious about the Epicureans: while the Stoics believed that the mere sight of the pretty night sky makes the existence of God self-evident, Epicureans applied a great deal of intellectual rigor to questioning the existence of superior beings, going as far as posing the “problem of evil� that has plagued the Christian religion ever since.
I read this book for a philosophy class on Stoicism, but ironically it made me more curious about the Epicureans: while the Stoics believed that the mere sight of the pretty night sky makes the existence of God self-evident, Epicureans applied a great deal of intellectual rigor to questioning the existence of superior beings, going as far as posing the “problem of evil� that has plagued the Christian religion ever since.
December 9, 2021
A pesar de que no me llevo tanto tiempo leerlo, la sensación fue de leer un libro interminable. No lo juzgo ya que soy consciente de que tiene que ver con la manera en la que llegue a el. Una lectura un tanto apurada ya que este libro era recomendación para seguir con otras lecturas y eso provocó que no me detuviera en muchos puntos como la lectura lo amerita.
Cicerón analiza la naturaleza de los dioses griegos/romanos basándose en lo que me parece una lógica socrática. Si la cosa no es blanca entonces es negra, por lo tanto el análisis que lleva a cabo se vuelve un tanto cansado con el pasar de las páginas.
La edición que cayó a mis manos es de Editorial Gredos y es una edición excelente por que está llena de referencias que son importantísimas para un libro tan antiguo como este.
El libro no es malo, solo me acerque a él en un mal momento.
Cicerón analiza la naturaleza de los dioses griegos/romanos basándose en lo que me parece una lógica socrática. Si la cosa no es blanca entonces es negra, por lo tanto el análisis que lleva a cabo se vuelve un tanto cansado con el pasar de las páginas.
La edición que cayó a mis manos es de Editorial Gredos y es una edición excelente por que está llena de referencias que son importantísimas para un libro tan antiguo como este.
El libro no es malo, solo me acerque a él en un mal momento.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 93 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.