On the Ends of Good and Evil: De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum

by Marcus Tullius Cicero

De finibus bonorum et malorum ("On the ends of good and evil") is a philosophical work by the Roman orator, politician and philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero. It consists of five books, in which Cicero explains the philosophical views of Epicureanism, Stoicism, and the Platonism of Antiochus of Ascalon. The book was developed in the summer of the year 45 BC within about one and a half months. Together with the Tusculanae Quaestiones written shortly afterwards, De finibus is the most extensive philosophical work of Cicero. It is dedicated to Marcus Junius Brutus.

Genres: Philosophy, Classics, Nonfiction, History, Roman, Audiobook, School

104 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 46

About the author

Born 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:
Cicéron
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.

Reviews

[Jean · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recently read the book “Friends Divided” by Gordon S. Wood. In the book Wood made a point that Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE-43 BCE) was a favorite of both John Adams (1735-1826) and Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) and they quoted Cicero frequently. I have always enjoyed reading about Cicero, but I suddenly realized I have never read any of his books. Audible had this audiobook by Cicero written toward the end of his life while he was in exile at his countryside estate. Apparently, he did a great deal of writing during this period.

In this book Cicero discusses the philosophical views of Epicureanism and Stoicism. The book was written in 45 BCE. I wish that I had the skill to read this in Latin. This book was translated to English by Harris Rackham. I am always in awe of reading a book written so long ago and yet it is valid today. I found the method Cicero used in writing extremely helpful in understanding his debates. The way he had different friends and himself debate back and forth the various points of each philosophy made me feel I was sitting with him and his friends in a patio drinking tea/wine. It was such a delight to have Cicero at times include me in the conversation. This is how I spent my Christmas Day, sitting in a garden with Cicero discussing philosophy. Oh, it was such a pleasant day.

I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is just over nine hours. Derek LePage does a good job narrating the book.

[شمس · Rating 4 out of 5]

What could be more important to the reader than working out for herself which is the right way to live? —Julia Anna, Introduction
__________
In short, a life that contains, in addition to virtue, a plentiful supply of the other things that are in accordance with nature is not more worth seeking, but more worth adopting, than a life consisting of virtue alone. (4.20)
__________
The way of life they commended was one spent in quiet contemplation and study. This is the most god-like of lives, and so most worthy of the wise person. (5.11)

Lacking the nobler delights of intellectual pursuit, they seek out any kind of company or social gathering instead. (5.56)

__________________
A good text for both information and criticism of ancient Epicurean and Stoic thought. I don't like spending time learning the ins and outs of particular philosophies, but prefer to spend my time developing my own through experience and time, and by cherry-picking the 'best' aspects from all philosophies; I would echo Montaigne:

Let him make him sift every thing, and lodge nothing in his brain on authority merely and on trust; let not Aristotle's principles be his principles, any more than those of the Stoics or Epicureans; let this diversity of opinions be put before him: he will choose if he can; if not . . .

Having said that, there are many good things to be plucked from this work, never mind the overview and criticism of the aforementioned philosophies. Whatever the intent behind the reading, time spent with this work is time well spent.

'However, evening is drawing in and I must return home. Enough, then, for now. I hope we shall often return to these subjects.’ ‘Indeed we shall’, said Cato. ‘There is no finer pursuit.’

__________
For the ancients, if an ethical theory can provide no guidance as to how we can incorporate it into our ethical reflection, then it is not a serious ethical theory. (Introduction)

The greater the study, the greater the reward. If wisdom can be attained, one should not just acquire it but enjoy it to the full. (1.2)

There is no need to waste my time picking a fight with those who prefer to read Greek texts, provided only that they do read them, and do not just pretend to. (1.10)

The root cause of life’s troubles is ignorance of what is good and bad. (1.43)

Desire is insatiable: it destroys not only individuals but whole families; often it can even bring an entire nation to its knees. It is from desire that enmity, discord, dissension, sedition, and war is born. Desire not only swaggers around on the outside and hurls itself blindly at others: even when desires are shut up inside the heart they quarrel and fight amongst themselves. A life of great bitterness is the inevitable result. So it is only the wise person, by pruning back all foolishness and error, who can live without misery and fear, happy with nature’s own limits. (1.43-44)

Very many people, unable to hold fast to their own decisions, become defeated and debilitated by whatever spectre of pleasure comes their way. So they put themselves at the mercy of their appetites, and fail to force the consequences; and thus for the sake of some slight and non-necessary pleasure—which might have been obtained in a different way, or even neglected altogether without any ensuing pain—they incur serious illness, financial loss,. A broken reputation, and often even legal and judicial punishment. (1.47)

One who constantly entertains plans and projects that compete amongst themselves and pull in different directions can know nothing of peace or tranquility. (1.58)

Moreover foolish people are forgetful of past successes, and fail to enjoy present ones. They simply await success in the future, but because that is necessarily uncertain, they are consumed with anxiety and fear, they are especially tormented when they realise, too late, the tthey pursued wealth or power or possessions or honour to no avail, and have failed to obtain any of the pleasures whose prospect drove them to endure a variety of great suffering. (1.60)

Epicurus represents the wise person who is always happy as one who sets desire within limits; is heedless of death; has knowledge of the truth about the immortal gods, and fears nothing; and will not hesitate to leave life behind if that is best. Equipped with these principles, the wise are in a constant state of pleasure, since there is no time in which they do not have more pleasure than pain. They recall the past with affection; are in full possession of the present moment and appreciate how great are it’s delights; have hope for the future, but do not rely on it—they are enjoying the present. (1.62)

But he failed to see the most obvious consequence. He says that he is not interested in defining his terms; but without this it can often be impossible for the disputants to reach agreement on what it is they are discussing. Consider the very topic we are debating now. We are enquiring into the highest good. But can we really understand what sort of thing this is unless we have sounded each other out on what we mean by “highest” and what indeed we mean by the term “good” itself when we speak of the highest good? (2.4)

’Then tell me’, I said, ‘in the case of one who is thirsty, is drinking a pleasure?’ ‘Who could deny it?’ ‘Is it the same pleasure as having a quenched thirst?’ ’No, it is quite a different kind. A quenched thirst is a “static” pleasure, whereas the pleasure of having one’s thirst quenches is “kinetic”.’ (2.9)

He has also somehow won over the group that possesses the lowest authority but the greatest power, namely the general public. (2.44)

You dress up just for show but the truth is hidden within. (2.77)

Once happiness is achieved, it is as permanent as the wisdom that brings it about. There is no need to wait until the end of our days, as Herodotus tells us that Solon warned Croesus to do. (2.87)

I take seriously Socrates’ maxim that the best seasoning for one’s good is hunger, and the best flavouring for one’s drink is thirst. (2.90)

If, on the other hand, his life had been awash with pleasure, but morally disreputable, then he would have been unhappy. (2.93)

Your maxim “Short if it is severe; light if it is long” makes a nice jingle. But virtue, high-mindedness, courage, and endurance are the real remedies for the alleviation of pain. (2.95)

The entire notion wishing to be commemorated at feasts after one’s death is alien to persons of learning . . . I will say just this: it is more appropriate for you to celebrate Epicurus’ birthday than it was for him too stipulate its celebration in his will. (2.103)

There is the familiar saying, “A task completed is a pleasant one.” Euripides puts it well: “Sweet is the memory of labours past.” —Andromeda [lost] (2.105)

I turn to your contention that the pleasures and pains of the mind are greater than those of the body, since the mind can range over past, present, and future, while the body is only aware of the present moment. (2.108)

The final aim, then, is to live consistently and harmoniously with nature. This being so, all who are wise necessarily live happy, perfect, and blessed lives, with no impediment or obstacle, lacking nothing. (3.26)

The four [emotional disurbances] are: sorrow, fear, lust, and what the Stoics call hêdonê, a term applicable to body as well as mind. I prefer to speak of “elation”, meaning the sensual delight of the exultant mind. (3.35)

You say the the audience will be inspired to believe so. A Stoic inspire anyone? More likely to dampen the ardour of the keenest student. (4.7)

. . . a noble and honourable occupation for our hours of leisure. (4.12)

Thus, say that someone who has lived pleasantly for ten years has an equally pleasant month of life added on. That is a good thing—the month’s additional pleasure carries some weight. None the less, the life would still have been a happy one regardless of the addition. (4.30)

Virtue, after all, is the perfection of reason. (4.35)

. . . seduced by the glorious grandeur of language. (4.60)

Some vices are worse than others. (4.67)

Ignorance of the supreme good, however, is necessarily equivalent to ignorance of how to plan one’s life. And this may take one so far off course that one loses sight of any haven to provide shelter. Once, however, we understand the highest ends, once we know what the ultimate good and evil is then we have a path through life, a model of all our duties, to which each of our actions can thereby be referred. (5.15)

Now a desire to know anything nor matter of what sort is simply a mark of inquisitiveness. But one who is led to a desire for knowledge by the contemplation of higher things should be considered the very finest example of a human being. (5.49)

[Anthony Louis Garavito · Rating 5 out of 5]

Este tratado moral, centrado en un fructífero y fascinante debate entre las antiguas escuelas filosóficas helénicas (Epicureísmo, Estoicismo, Peripatéticos), tratan el tema sobre cuál es el sumo bien y el sumo mal de la existencia humana, con argumentos contrapuestos, demostraciones dialécticas, evidencias derivadas de la experiencia. Etc.

En el transcurso de las discusiones, los argumentantes, relatan experiencias históricas, artísticas, científicas que enriquecen el panorama al lector, ayudan a conocer el estado de conciencia e idiosincrasia de la sociedad romana antigua. El estilo literario de Cicerón es exquisito, absorbente, iluminando el entendimiento de las cuestiones filosóficas más oscuras al lector, sencillamente un texto que ofrece una enseñanza filosófica muy completa.

[Alice Tremblay]

This fucking slapped

[Laurine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fun fact: le Lorem Ipsum des graphistes est tiré de ce livre :)

Un exposé en 5 livres des doctrines philosophiques de la période hellénistique sous forme de plaisant dialogue entre Cicéron et ses amis. Cicéron réfute d’abord la doctrine d’Épicure présentée par Torquatus, puis le Stoïcisme de Pison, avant d’argumenter pour l’Académisme qui a sa faveur.
Il n’est pas toujours de bonne foi, particulièrement dans le livre II; une philosophie pratique et empirique telle que l’épicurisme ne gagnant évidement rien à être entraînée dans un rigide débat dialectique comme ici. Par contre Cicéron se montre moins vantard et vaniteux qu’à son habitude, à profit pour le livre, qui est vraiment charmant.

[Andrew Fairweather]

Why does Cicero always ultimately leave me cold? I don't fervently disagree with much I've read by him, yet... I feel like I'm always waiting for the passage which will convince me of his reputed brilliance. As for this particular work, 'On Ends' is a dialogue between the convinced Epicurian, Torquatus, and Cicreo, followed by another dialogue with the Stoic Cato. The style of disputation is very different in both debates--much of this has to do with the premise of Epicurianism and Stoicism and its relation to Cicero's own point of view which greatly favors the Stoic's devotion to virtue.

I have a lot of sympathy with Cicero's take-down of Epicurianism. Indeed, I think it can be reasonably figured that we live in a largely Epicurian world at the moment due to out location of the Good Life in largely sensual pleasures. His critique of Epicurus' lack of distinction when using the term "pleasure" (Epicurus says that the absence of pain is a definite, static pleasure as opposed to moving pleasure which is sought) is spot on, and it is fair play to him that he makes a point to reserve his criticism for Epicurus the thinker, not the man. By far the hedonist's worst offense is his locating the center of pleasure and pain in the sensations of the body which Cicero argues dulls the fruits of reason since reason can only be a means to an end of sensual pleasure. Epicurus does not portray a social human being—insofar as Cicero insists on the social character of humanity, I am with him all the way. After all, without this crucial foundation, both Judgement and Justice are impossible—

"The fact is that when [Epicurus] says that the verdict of the senses themselves decides pleasure to be good and pain evil, he assigns more authority to the senses than the law allows to us when we sit as judges in private suits. We cannot decide any issue not within our jurisdiction; and there is not really any point in the proviso which judges are fond of adding to their verdicts: ‘if it be a matter within my jurisdiction,’ for if it was not within their jurisdiction, the verdict is equally invalid with the proviso omitted. What does come under the verdict of the senses? Sweetness, sourness, smoothness, roughness, proximity, distance; whether an object is stationary or moving, square or round."


The Epicurian stance is essentially anti-public. Plato's Myth of Gyges kept turning in my head. Rather than outright promote the idea that "ethics are what we do when no one is looking" (something which Cicero would undoubtedly concur) Cicero portrays the most malignant personality as one that would practice public virtue for the satisfaction of their own selfish ends.

"Again, if modesty, self-control, chastity, if in a word Temperance is to depend for its sanction on the fear of punishment or of disgrace, and not to maintain itself by its own intrinsic sacredness, what form of adultery, vice or lust will not break loose and run riot when it is assured of concealment, impunity or indulgence."

Here, Epicurianism is kind like the "ethical consumerism" we have today which tells us that the buy responsibly sourced products is out ticket out of environmental catastrophe, or the proper way to support political causes... no, the outrageous excesses of consumerism *itself* can't possibly be responsible for the destruction of the planet! Of course, the Epicurian would argue that saving the planet is in the subject's own interest... a rather flat statement if you ask me. I think we should all be quite aware of where enlightened selfishness gets us. Being essentially anti-public, I'm not sure you *could* trust an Epicurian to come up with the massive social organization necessary to properly tackle problems that are rightly political. Instead, for the Epicurian, life is that of the gambler's, a game of chance, and fate "will be what it will be"—


"For the things that produce pleasure are not in the Wise Man’s control; since happiness does not consist in wisdom itself, but in the means to pleasure which wisdom can procure. But all the apparatus of pleasure is external, and what is external must depend on chance. "


Anyway, what follows is a discussion with Cato in Lucullus' country home about Stoicism. It seems like Cicero agrees with Cato by-and-large, but feels it is not subtle enough to account for the emotional complexity of human beings. Again, no disagreements from me—yet, for this reader, long passages which concerned themselves about the differences between the Peripatetic and the Stoic school of thought left me yawning in a big way (I just don't have the requisite background to appreciate it all, I am fully willing to admit) and I had to close up shop early before Cicero got to talking about the Academy. I don't normally review books I didn't finish, but hey, if there's anything I learned from Cicero here it's that you ought to have your principles, but don't get to worked up over them, eh? Geez, I wish I enjoyed this a little more though. I think the Catiline orations are probably my next move. Orations—that's probably the good stuff.

[Hulttio · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of two Cicero texts I got to read this semester. I’m really grateful that we had two seminars this term that weren’t focusing on Plato or Aristotle or the Neoplatonists for a change! De finibus (DF) is a text concerned with moral ends, and in particular, the supreme good, and involves discussion of Epicurean, Stoic, and Aristotelian viewpoints on the matter. This edition was fantastic with helpful notes by Annas and an engaging translation by Woolf. I did read some passages in Latin but not as much as I should have, so that will be more of an ongoing project as I go into writing my term paper.

Since this was read for a course, I’m not entirely sure how to do an honest review. I greatly enjoyed this text and the seminar, though not quite over, was really enjoyable too. Annas provides a lot of useful notes on the DF and relevant context as needed, and Woolf gives a translation that is easy to comprehend and maintains a taste of Cicero’s Latin. I particularly enjoyed Cato’s presentation of the Stoic argument in Book 3, of course, though the refutation of Epicurean thought in Book 2 was also delightful to read. After this semester, I certainly can’t say I view Epicurus in the same way. The secondary reading, while not this book, was also really helpful and Klein’s paper in particular was monumentous. The discussion of oikeiôsis by Cato as the starting point of moral development really gave me a lot to think about, not only with regards to moral development but also the development of social communities, human instincts, etc.

It would be difficult to not comment on Cicero’s subtle pats-on-the-back that he inserts throughout, showcasing his own deft hand in translating Greek texts or explaining certain concepts particularly well… or having incredibly long sentences. Based on Klein’s paper, I still am conflicted about whether or not we can take Cicero as an honest man in depicting Epicurean and Stoic thought the way he does here. No doubt the views of Antiochus are a bit more clear in Book 5, but the discussion and refutation of Stoic concepts in Books 3 and 4 seems to conveniently favor Cicero a bit too much. (And there are other issues, which can be seen in Klein’s paper.)

What exactly is virtue and the ultimate good? The question may not entirely be answered in DF, but Cicero does give the reader a lot of wonderful starting points for thinking about and discussing this matter at length by way of several Hellenistic philosophical systems. I’m definitely more partial to the Stoic view of course, but Cicero’s rebuttal does also give a lot of food for thought and further ways to grapple with these ideas. I quite enjoyed this and am trying to not be too overwhelmed at figuring out what I will focus on for the term paper…

“The Stoics hold that the universe is ruled by divine will, and that it is virtually a single city and state shared by humans and gods. Each one of us is a part of this universe. It follows naturally from this that we value the common good more than our own. … And the fact that no one would choose to live in splendid isolation, however well supplied with pleasures, shows that we are born to join together and associate with one another and form natural communities. Indeed we are naturally driven to want to help as many people as possible, especially by teaching and handing on the principles of practical reason.”

[Illiterate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cicero analyzes pleasure and virtue as ends. In a terrific subtext, he insists on definitions, distinctions, and logical consistency.

[C. Çevik · Rating 5 out of 5]

Elimden düşmeyen son Cicero kitabı! Hayırdır inşallah.

[Suze Fields · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read it in Hungarian, not in Latin. Though there were several parts where I didn't agree with Cicero, or that I found his arguing a little bit flawed (at least in the Hungarian translation, in some parts he seems to twist the words of Epicurus), all in all I found it quite enjoyable and interesting. Wish it were complete!

[Benjamin Gaiser · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book Cicero develops the ideas of the three prevailing philosophical ideas of his time. He gives several accounts for and against them and as such it is a good introductionary read into ancient philosophy. Another side topic is the fact that Cicero establishes that one need not to philosophize in a traditional language but that philosophy should be adaptable to everybody's mother tongue.

[rogue · Rating 5 out of 5]

I will have to read this a dozen more times before I can say anything about it.

[Alessio]

Baby's first proper Cicero :) Clever dialogues and clear arguments from Cicero the fictional character against Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Antiocheanism. Piso's eloquence and rhetorical flair in Book V are very seductive, especially his bit on Ulysses's discendi cupiditas, which Dante would take up in Inferno XXVI.

At this point one hears the objection that the studies I have mentioned are pursued for the sake of mental pleasure. This fails to grasp that they are desirable for their own sake precisely because the mind takes delight in them in the absence of any utility, and finds joy in pure knowledge even if it should be practically disadvantageous. There is little purpose in inquiring further into such an obvious matter, as will be clear if we ask ourselves the following questions: why are we so fascinated by the motion of the stars, and by contemplation of the heavenly bodies and all of nature’s hidden secrets? Why do we like history so much? We enjoy pursuing the smallest points, worrying over areas we have left blank, and trying to fill in what is incomplete.

[Costangeles · Rating 3 out of 5]

O bună recapitulare a filosofiei de până atunci, deși nu prea contribuie cu nimic în schimbarea paradigmei filosofice. Motivul pentru care îi acord trei stele este, firește, contribuția lui Cicero la valorificarea limbii latine (care se regăsește din plin în această lucrare) și analiza detaliată a filosofiei Greciei antice.

[William Prueter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Go to prueter.org. Click on my Latin page. Click on books read. Click on Marcus Tullius Cicero. Scrool down to 545.

[Stuart Dean · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cicero examines the three big philosophies; Epicureanism, Stoicism(New School), and Stoicism(Old School). In three sections each one is covered in an imaginary discussion, all dedicated to Brutus. In the first part Torquatus explains what Epicureans believe, and it is not all just hedonism. The highest goal for a human is the freedom from pain, and once that is achieved then life simply improves with the addition of pleasures. Emotional and psychological pain is prioritized over physical pain, so being settled in one's mind is the first step to nirvana. Living an honest life, being industrious, having friends, these are necessary to remove the pains like guilt and other things bothersome to the mind, after which the body can be pleasured with good food and fine wine.

The second part is a class on the Stoics led by Cato. The Stoics believe that the only end worth fighting for is virtue, and that nothing else matters. Not wealth, or health, or friends, or anything. As long as a man stands by his principles and does what he believes to be right then he can go to the rack with the confidence that he is a good man no matter what. Cato is kind of a hard ass.

The third part I believe it's Piso that argues that Aristotelians and the Peripatetics are not much different that he Stoics, mainly separated by pedantic semantics. The Old School people agree with the New School that virtue is the highest end, but that outside influences like pain and pleasure also have influence. To be faithful to oneself is the highest achievement, but no man is an island.

PS: A fun drinking game to play when reading Cicero: How long will he go before he mentions his Consulship and the Cataline Conspiracy? Spoiler: 19 pages

[Andre · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm glad I was familiar with Aristotle's (Natural) Philosophy before I read this.

Cicero and I agree that the Epicureans don't have much to offer in the way of a workable philosophy. But his taking unction with the Stoics (vs. the Peripatetic's) I can't grok. What he says are his main points of contention are
a) that they use specialist language rather than common language, and
b) that they insist the only the virtues are the path to a moral life.

Clearly Cicero is a practical and pragmatic man so his insistence on plain speaking isn't all that surprising to me. However, any specialized body of knowledge tends to have specialized vocabulary (aka jargon) so that those in the field can communicate precisely. I fail to see why this would not be the case with Philosophers, even ancient ones.

The mere concept of "indifferents" seems to bother Cicero to no end. Not only does it seem to bother him in a personal way, but he thinks it undermines the entire Stoic school. I think, rather, that this is its strong suit. It focuses the mind on what is important and what is not important on the path to eudaimonia. Don't get distracted by such indifferents, preferred or not, keep your eye on the ultimate prize. When you see people from all stations of life as successful Stoic's this lends credibility to the approach. Contrariwise, the Aristotelian approach tries to incorporate and compare too many things on a level playing field. One can do that, or one can take the Stoic approach where somethings are truly different in kind, not merely in degree.

[Sladjana Kovacevic · Rating 4 out of 5]

𐌼. Ƭʋℓℓι Ɔιcɛяσиιƨ-Dε ẜυƞδιβυៜ βɸƞɸʀυʍ ετ ʍαℓɸʀυʍ
"𝓕𝓸𝓻 𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻𝔂 𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓲𝓼 𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪𝓬𝓱𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓸 𝓲𝓽𝓼𝓮𝓵𝓯. 𝓕𝓸𝓻 𝔀𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓲𝓼 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝔀𝓲𝓬𝓱𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓼 𝓲𝓽𝓼𝓮𝓵𝓯 𝓸𝓻 𝓪𝓷𝔂 𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓽𝓼𝓮𝓵𝓯,𝓸𝓻 𝓪𝓷𝔂 𝓸𝓷𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓽𝓼 𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓼..."
𝑆𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑗𝑖 𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑧 𝑝𝑒𝑡 𝑘𝑛𝑗𝑖𝑔𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑣𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑖ℎ 𝐶𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑜𝑚 𝑢č𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑘𝑢 𝐵𝑟𝑢𝑡𝑢(𝑑𝑎,𝑑𝑎,𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚 𝐶𝑒𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑜𝑚)
𝑃𝑟𝑣𝑎 𝑑𝑣𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑠𝑢 𝑜š𝑡𝑟𝑎 𝑘𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑘𝑎 𝑒𝑝𝑖𝑘𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑗𝑠𝑘𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑧𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑗𝑒,𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑜𝑑𝑎𝑗𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑗𝑒 𝐸𝑝𝑖𝑘𝑢𝑟𝑢 𝑑𝑎 "𝑏𝑜𝑙𝑗𝑒 ž𝑖𝑣𝑖 𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑜 š𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑𝑎".
𝑇𝑟𝑒ć𝑖 𝑖 č𝑒𝑡𝑣𝑟𝑡𝑖 𝑑𝑒𝑜 𝑠𝑢 𝑟𝑎𝑧𝑔𝑜𝑣𝑜𝑟𝑖 𝑠 𝐾𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚 𝑛𝑎 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑢 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑖𝑘𝑎.
𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑎 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑧𝑚𝑢 𝑗𝑒 𝑛𝑒š𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑙𝑎ž𝑖,𝑢𝑔𝑙𝑎𝑣𝑛𝑜𝑚 𝑗𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑚 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑗𝑎.
𝑃𝑒𝑡𝑎 𝑘𝑛𝑗𝑖𝑔𝑎 𝑗𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑗𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑠 𝐴𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜ℎ𝑜𝑚 𝑔𝑑𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑣𝑙𝑗𝑎 𝐴𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑣𝑜 𝑖 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑜 𝑢č𝑒𝑛𝑗𝑒,𝑘𝑜𝑗𝑒 𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑎 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑚 𝑑𝑜𝑏𝑟𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑧𝑜𝑓𝑠𝑘𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑙𝑖.
𝐶𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑛 𝑗𝑒 𝑜𝑑𝑙𝑖č𝑎𝑛 𝑝𝑖𝑠𝑎𝑐 𝑖 𝑔𝑜𝑣𝑜𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑘,𝑎𝑙𝑖 𝑛𝑖𝑗𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑛 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑧𝑜𝑓.
𝑆𝑣𝑒 𝑗𝑎𝑠𝑛𝑜 𝑖𝑧𝑙𝑜ž𝑒𝑛𝑜 𝑎𝑙𝑖 𝑛𝑒𝑚𝑎 𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑛𝑖ℎ 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑙𝑖. 𝑍𝑎 𝑛𝑒𝑢𝑝𝑢ć𝑒𝑛𝑒 𝑜𝑑𝑙𝑖č𝑛𝑜 š𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑜,𝑎𝑙𝑖 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑖 𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑛𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑐𝑒.
✒𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑎9️⃣
ᶠⁱᵛᵉ ᵇᵒᵒᵏˢ ᵈᵉᵈⁱᶜᵃᵗᵉᵈ ᵗᵒ ᶜⁱᶜᵉʳᵒ'ˢ ᵖᵘᵖⁱˡ ᵐᵃʳᶜᵘˢ ʲᵘˡⁱᵘˢ ᵇʳᵘᵗᵘˢ.
ᶠⁱʳˢᵗ ᵗʷᵒ ᵖᵃʳᵗˢ ᵃʳᵉ ᵗʰᵉ ᶜʳⁱᵗⁱqᵘᵉ ᵒᶠ ᵉᵖⁱᶜᵘʳⁱᵃⁿⁱˢᵐ,ᵃˡᵗʰᵒᵘʰᵗ ᶜⁱᶜᵉʳᵒ ˢᵃʸˢ ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᵉᵖⁱᶜᵘʳᵘˢ ˡⁱᵛᵉˢ ᵇᵉᵗᵗᵉʳ ᵗʰᵃⁿ ʰᵉ ᵗᵉᵃᶜʰᵉˢ.
ᵗʰⁱʳᵈ ᵃⁿᵈ ᶠᵒᵘʳᵗ ᵖᵃʳᵗ ᵃʳᵉ ᶜᵒⁿᵛᵉʳˢᵃᵗⁱᵒⁿˢ ʷⁱᵗʰ ᶜᵃᵗᵒ ᵃᵇᵒᵘᵗ ˢᵗᵒⁱᶜⁱˢᵐ.
ˢᵗᵒⁱᶜ ᵗᵉᵃᶜʰ ᵍᵒᵒᵈ,ᵇᵘᵗ ʷⁱᵗʰ ᵗʰᵉ ᶠᵃᵘˡᵗ ᵗᵉʳᵐⁱⁿᵒˡᵒᵍʸ-ˢᵃˢʸˢ ᶜⁱᶜᵉʳᵒ.
ᶠⁱᶠᵗ ᵖᵃʳᵗ ⁱˢ ᵈⁱᵃˡᵒᵍ ʷⁱᵗʰ ᵃⁿᵗⁱᵒᶜʰᵘˢ ᵃᵇᵒᵘᵗ ᵃʳᵒˢᵗᵒᵗᵉˡⁱᵃⁿ ᵃⁿᵈ ᵖˡᵃᵗᵒⁿⁱᵃⁿ ᵖʰⁱˡᵒˢᵒᵖʰʸ ᵃⁿᵈ ᵗʰᵉʳᵉ ᶜᵒᶜᵉʳᵒ ᶠⁱⁿᵈˢ ᵗʰᵉ ʳᵘˡᵉˢ ᵗᵒ ᶠᵒˡˡᵒʷ ⁱⁿ ˡⁱᶠᵉ.
ᶜⁱᶜᵉʳᵒ ⁱˢ ᵃ ᵍᵒᵒᵈ ʷʳⁱᵗᵉʳ ᵃⁿᵈ ᵒʳᵃᵗᵒʳ ᵇⁱᵗ ᵘⁿⁱⁿᵛᵉⁿᵗⁱᵛ ᵖʰⁱˡᵒˢᵒᵖʰᵉʳ.
ᵗʰᵉ ᵇᵒᵒᵏ ⁱˢ ᵉᵃˢʸ ᵗᵒ ᵘⁿᵈᵉʳˢᵗᵃⁿᵈ,ᵍⁱᵛᵉˢ ᵘˢ ᵍᵒᵒᵈ ⁱⁿˢⁱᵍʰᵗ ᵇᵘᵗ ʷᵉ ˢʰᵒᵘˡᵈ ᶜʰᵉᶜᵏ ᵗʰᵉ ᵒʳⁱᵍⁱⁿᵃˡ ᵗʰⁱⁿᵏᵉʳˢ
✒ᵍʳᵃᵈᵉ9️⃣

[Tecolotl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Listening to this definitely hit different as he was a orator first.

"Uncommon" sense type of wisdom, W. An excellent breakdown of Epicurean, Stoic, Skeptic, Aristotle,Theophrastus and Peripatetic ideology.

"Now, from whichever Prudence decides to be the object of the primary natural impulses, will arise a theory of right and of Moral Worth which may correspond with one or other of the three objects aforesaid. Thus Morality will consist either in aiming all our actions at pleasure, even though one may not succeed in attaining it; or at absence of pain, even though one is unable to secure it; or at getting the things in accordance with nature, even though one does not attain any of them. Hence there is a divergence between the different conceptions of the Ends of Goods and Evils, precisely equivalent to the difference of opinion as to the primary natural objects. — Others again starting from the same primary objects will make the sole standard of right action the actual attainment of pleasure, freedom from pain, or the primary things in accordance with nature, respectively.

I also liked the poetic bits sprinkled throught!

Slow he pierced the swift with arrows, standing shot them on the wing

-Attius

Prepare for "whiplash" when you first read it, lol.

[Sahand Moezi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gosh where do i even start!!! This was my first experience with Cicero, and I kind of liked it. He wrote this book specifically in a dialogue style, just like Plato did (acting as a mouthpiece for Socrates). No author deserves to be compared to other authors. That is so unfair. Cicero here fails to make the conversation interesting at least (I mean don't get me wrong. If you love philosophy you will learn to suck some unpleasantries up for the sake of the content provided). The focus of Cicero here is more on the content, and his choice of characters is admirable in itself in that some of them have been dead before even he started writing the book (i.e. Cato). He scrutinizes the philosophies of Epicurus in the epicurean system, as well as mocking (sort of) the foundations of Stoics, invented by Zeno. The whole thing is 5 volumes and super long, and I confess I have skipped over some of the pages as his arguments were outstretched for no good reason (they are not even analytical most of the time - I love analytical philosophy!). Overall a good intro to these systems if you have not gotten disposed to them before. For me it was sort of boring as I have read them in the past. Nonetheless, a worthy book to be read.

[Tristan Williams · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cicero does well to elucidate some of the views that we aren't as exposed to nowadays, namely Epicureanism and Stoicism, providing a nice source for Epicureanism which can be hard to pin down, and a nice systemization of Stoicism which isn't easily gleaned out of reading something like The Meditations or the Handbook. Some chapters shined, but others I honestly found quite boring, and I think I came to realize that despite the often interesting intellectual material, the way Cicero packaged it was quite hard to read for me, a dialog, but much less a conversation than someone familiar with Plato would expect. I think the writing style was the biggest detractor here, so if you think you might like more monolog and find the material interesting, it would be worth your time to make this a read.

[James Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reviewing Cicero is difficult (he wrote in genres he partially created and quite unlike modern philosophy), but the translation can be commented on. The footnotes are very good for not just clarifying details of the common biographical references, but drawing attention to the key point of arguments.

The common thread is of course the nature of the good and happy life and arguments are presented in various ways and with varying success. Similarly to Platonic dialogues we are not offered a worked solution, but issues and problems and encouraged to judge ourselves (explaining some very weak argument in places and some questionable bald assertions).

[Guéorgos · Rating 3 out of 5]

Edition Les Belles Lettres, coll. Classiques en poche, ISBN 2251799184

Bon, le texte de Cicéron en soit pourquoi pas, c'est assez peu surprenant ce qui est écrit mais on s'attendrait à une introduction qui permette de comprendre l'enjeu du texte : elle est superficielle et presque ornementale tant son intérêt ne semble être que la volonté d'ajouter quelques pages au livre pour en justifier le prix (11euros pour 45 pages de texte latin).
J'imagine qu'il faudrait mieux privilégier la CUF pour avoir un introduction digne de ce nom comme bien trop souvent malheureusement pour cette collection ...

[Santiago González · Rating 4 out of 5]

Diálogo muy bueno, me gusta mucho el eclecticismo de Cicerón, se me hace muy razonable su filosofía, aunque no estoy de acuerdo en todo. Creo que el que hace la introducción de Gredos se equivoca en quitarle mérito y valor, bebe de fuentes anteriores sí pero lo hace muy bien. Muy buena crítica al epicureísmo y al estoicismo, también un testimonio de de altísimo valor del pensamiento de las escuelas y filósofos anteriores, que de otra forma apenas conoceríamos más allá de lo que dice Diógenes Laercio.

[Oriol Ràfols Grifell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Queda clar que el fort de Ciceró no era la filosofia. Brilla molt més en les Catilinàries o en altres exercicis de política i retòrica. Tot i així, el llibre (una discussió entre epicuris, estoics i peripatètics) és interessant pels diàlegs que tenen personatges que hi apareixen, tan influents en la història com Cató, Brutus o el mateix Ciceró, que si sempre els veiem en discursos polítics, aquí els trobem debatent sobre filosofia. I a fe que amb gran coneixement.

[Dan DalMonte · Rating 5 out of 5]

With the clear and powerful mind of a trained lawyer, Cicero's considers different views on the ultimate good of human life. He considers the Epicureans, the Stoics, and the Peripatetics. I highly recommend this book, and that you allow Cicero to guide you in your meditations about what is of highest value in life--pleasure, virtue, or whether you need some external goods to accompany virtue.

[Zachary Rudolph · Rating 4 out of 5]

“For nothing in life is more worth investigating than philosophy in general, and the question raised in this work in particular: what is the end, what is the ultimate and final goal, to which all our deliberations on living well and acting rightly should be directed?”

[Fabian · Rating 5 out of 5]

When it comes to moral philosophy it doesn’t get any better than Cicero.

[Emmanuel-francis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was enjoyable to read, a credit no doubt to the editor, translator and author. Possibly the single best introductory text to Philosophy I have ever read.

[Chet · Rating 5 out of 5]

Recommend this book to anyone who likes to read Latin Classics..