Пожалуйста, используйте этот идентификатор, чтобы цитировать или ссылаться на этот ресурс:
http://hdl.handle.net/11701/16583
Полная запись метаданных
Поле DC | Значение | Язык |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Shakhnovich, Marianna M. | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-11-14T12:42:44Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-11-14T12:42:44Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2019-09 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Shakhnovich M. M. The polemical practice in ancient Epicureanism. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 2019, vol. 35, issue 3, pp. 461–471. | en_GB |
dc.identifier.other | https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2019.306 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11701/16583 | - |
dc.description.abstract | The article explores the presentation methods of a philosophical doctrine in Greek and Roman Epicureanism; it is shown that for the ancient, middle, and Roman Epicureans a controversy with representatives of other philosophical schools was a typical way of presenting their own views. The polemical practice, in which the basic principles of Epicureanism were expounded through the criticism of other philosophical systems, first of all, Academics and Stoics, was considered not only as the preferred way of presenting the own doctrine, but also as the most convenient rhetorical device, which had, among other things, didactic significance. The founder of the school, Epicurus, often included in his texts the terms used in other philosophical schools, giving them a different, often opposite, content. While presenting his teaching in the treatise “On Nature” or in letters to his followers, Epicurus pushed off the opinions of Democritus, Plato, and the Stoics, but resorted mainly to implicit criticism of his opponents, often without naming them by name. His closest students and later followers — Metrodorus, Hermarchus, Colotes, Philodemus, Lucretius, Diogenes of Oenoanda — continuing the controversy with the Academics and the Stoics, more frankly expressed their indignation about the “falsely understood Epicureanism” or erroneous opinions. In their writings, satirical techniques and angry denunciations were often used to criticize opponents. The focus of the article is on the controversy of Epicurus with Plato; the interpretation of the concept of “anticipation” in Epicurus and the Stoics, the polemic controversies and the use of the principle of “refraining from judgment”, drawn from the Stoics, to criticize Academics. In addition, the article analyzes the rhetorical tricks of Philodemus, who believed that frank speech is not only the best way to heal the soul, but also a method of philosophical controversy. | en_GB |
dc.description.sponsorship | The article was written with the support of the RFBR grant No. 18-011-01123 “The Problem of Connecting Morality and Religion in Epicurean and Stoic Philosophy: A Comparative Analysis of the Controversial Discourse”. | en_GB |
dc.language.iso | en | en_GB |
dc.publisher | St Petersburg State University | en_GB |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | Vestnik of St Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies;Volume 35; Issue 3 | - |
dc.subject | Epicurus | en_GB |
dc.subject | Epicureanism | en_GB |
dc.subject | Colotes | en_GB |
dc.subject | Philodemus | en_GB |
dc.subject | Roman Epicureanism | en_GB |
dc.subject | Stoicism | en_GB |
dc.subject | Academic Scepticism | en_GB |
dc.subject | polemic method | en_GB |
dc.title | The polemical practice in ancient Epicureanism | en_GB |
dc.type | Article | en_GB |
Располагается в коллекциях: | Issue 3 |
Файлы этого ресурса:
Файл | Описание | Размер | Формат | |
---|---|---|---|---|
461-471.pdf | 619,96 kB | Adobe PDF | Просмотреть/Открыть |
Все ресурсы в архиве электронных ресурсов защищены авторским правом, все права сохранены.