Chapter 21 -2

Suicide, however, was rare among the Greeks, and besides Cleomenes, I cannot now think of a single very famous Greek patriot or hero who killed himself.The death of Aristomenes, like that of Ajax, occurred long before the real historical period.The well-known story of the death of Themistocles takes place in a real historical period, but this story has various romantic features.Of all the Greek heroes whose lives are written by Plutarch, Cleomenes seems to be the only one who ended his life by suicide.Theramenes, Socrates, and Phocion, certainly did not lack the courage to subject themselves to imprisonment and to submit calmly to the death sentence unjustly pronounced by their fellow-citizens.Brave Eumenes allowed himself to be handed over by mutinous soldiers to the enemy Antigonus, and starved to death without any attempt at violent resistance.The brave philosopher, imprisoned by Mesenius, was thrown into a dungeon, and was said to have been secretly poisoned.It is true that several philosophers are said to have ended their lives by suicide, but the accounts of their lives are so poorly written that most of the legends concerning them are difficult to believe.There are three different accounts of the death of the Stoic scholar Zeno.One account is that after living to be 98 years old in very good health, he suddenly fell to the ground when he walked out of the academy where he lectured. He thumped the ground and said in the tone of Niobe described by Euripides: "I am here, why do you still call me?" Then he went home immediately and hanged himself.In old age a man thinks he has but a sliver of patience to go on living.Another account is: also at the age of 98, due to the same accident, he died of a hunger strike.The third account is: he died at the age of 72.This is the most probable of the three recorded deaths, and is confirmed by a contemporary authority, who must have had every opportunity at the time to know the truth well. His name was Perseus, and he was originally a slave. He later became Zeno's friend and disciple.The first is that of Apollonius of Tyre, who was famous during the reign of Augustus, Caesar, and two or three hundred years after Zeno's death.I do not know who is the author of the third account.Apollonius, himself a Stoic, probably thought that this would do honor to the founder of the sect that talked about voluntary termination of life, that is, suicide by one's own hands.Men of letters, though they are often spoken of more after their death than their eminent princes or statesmen of the day, were usually so inconspicuous and insignificant during their lives that their contemporaries Historians seldom describe their strange experiences.To satisfy the public's curiosity, and because there were no authoritative sources to confirm or disprove their accounts, later historians seem to have often fashioned these men of letters according to their own imagination, almost always in large numbers. Entrained with some miracles.In Zeno's case, these miracles, though not confirmed by authoritative figures, seem to outweigh the best attested possibilities.Diogenes Laertius apparently thought that Apollonius' account was better.Lucian and Lactantius seem to believe both the accounts of old age and death as well as those of suicide.

Suicide was evidently more prevalent among the proud Romans than among the active, quick-witted, resilient Greeks.Even among the Romans this atmosphere does not seem to have developed in earlier times, and in that virtuous age which is called the republic.The usual story of the death of Regulus, though it may be a legend, is by no means a fiction, and some disgrace is supposed to fall on the man who patiently endured what is said to have been given him by Carthage. That tortured hero's body.I think that, in the latter days of the Republic, such humiliation would have accompanied such submission.In the civil wars which preceded the decline of the republic, many eminent men of all rival parties preferred to have themselves killed than to fall into the hands of their enemies.The death of Cato, extolled by Cicero and condemned by Caesar, was perhaps a matter of great contention between the two greatest exponents of the world's attention, and it stamped a certain Glorious mark.This method of death seems to have continued for several ages thereafter.Cicero was more eloquent than Caesar.Praise completely drowned out blame, and several generations of liberty lovers later looked up Cato as the most venerable Republican martyr.Cardinal Ritz remarked: A leader of a party may do anything he pleases, and he can do no wrong so long as he maintains the confidence of his friends.Cato's eminence afforded him the opportunity on several occasions to experience the truth of this maxim.Cato, among other virtues, seems to have been a drinker.His enemies accused him of being an alcoholic.But, says Seneca, whoever objected to this defect of Cato's would find that excessive drinking was more easily proved to be a virtue than any other vice in which Cato would have indulged.

This method of death seems to have been very popular for a long time under the sovereign.In the letters of Pliny we find a passage in which some choose this death out of vanity and ostentation, and not out of the Some motive that is expedient or necessary to be established. Even ladies who seldom follow in the footsteps of this fashion often seem to choose it quite unnecessary.For example, Bengali ladies accompany their husbands to the grave on certain occasions.The prevalence of this fashion must have caused many deaths that would not otherwise have occurred.Yet all the damage which the greatest vanity and arrogance of man can cause, is perhaps not so great.

The principle of suicide, which on certain occasions may lead us to regard such a violent action as an object of approval and approval, seems to be quite some philosophical artifice.Nature in its sane and whole state never seems to drive us to suicide.Indeed, there is a certain depression (a pathology to which human nature is unhappily prone in the midst of other catastrophes) which seems to bring about what is said to be an irresistible taste for self-destruction.In circumstances often outwardly very fortunate, and sometimes even in spite of the most serious and impressive religious sentiments involved, this pathology, well known, drives its unfortunate victims to Such a deadly impasse.The unfortunate man who ended his life in such a tragic way is not a proper object of reproach, but of sympathy.For it is as absurd as injustice to punish them when they do not deserve all human punishment.Punishment can only fall upon their surviving friends and relatives, who are always perfectly innocent, and to whom such an ignominious death of their relatives must have been but a very great calamity .Nature, in a state of soundness and integrity, prompts us to avoid such misfortunes on all occasions, and to defend ourselves against them on many occasions, though in this protection we would be in peril, or even certainly lose our lives.But when we are neither capable of protecting ourselves from misfortune nor perish in this protection, there is no principle in nature, no concern for the approbation of an imaginary impartial spectator, no concern for our The concern of the judgment of the judge in the heart seems to call us to escape this misfortune by destroying ourselves.It is nothing but our own sense of frailty, our inability to bear this catastrophe with proper courage and firmness, that drives us to this suicidal resolution.I do not recall ever reading or hearing of an American savage who, when captured by some hostile tribe, committed suicide, that he might not die afterwards in torment, insulted and ridiculed by his enemies.He valiantly endured his tortures, and returned tenfold the insults and scorns which his enemies inflicted upon him.He takes pride in them.

However, the contempt for life and death, and at the same time the extreme obedience to the destiny; the complete contentment with everything that can happen in the life of mankind in the present, may be seen as the basis on which the entire moral system of the Stoics rests. Established two basic theories.The bohemian and spirited, but often harsh Epictetus may be regarded as the true author of the former doctrine; and the gentle, human, benevolent Antoninus the latter true proponents of the doctrine. This freed slave of Epaphareditus, insulted in youth by some cruel master, was expelled from Rome and Athens in old age because of Domitian's suspicions and capriciousness, and was Confined to Nicopolis, and at any moment liable to be sent to the Isle of Gyre by the same tyrant, or to be put to death, his peace of mind could only be preserved by the greatest contempt for human life.He was never overly excited and, accordingly, his words were not overly impassioned.He claims that all the joys and pains of life are irrelevant and indifferent.

The good-natured emperor, the supreme sovereign of all the civilized parts of the world, certainly had no particular reason to complain of the dominion he had acquired, but liked to express his satisfaction at the normal course of things, and even to point out that the ordinary observer usually could not see some of the beauties.There is, he says, a certain befitting, even charming beauty, in both the conditions of old age and youth; the feebleness and senility of the former are as proper to nature as the youth and vigor of the latter. .As youth is the end of children, and manhood is the end of youth, so death is an appropriate end for old age.He said on another occasion: Just as we usually say that a doctor orders such a person to ride a horse, or take a cold bath, or go barefoot, we should say that God, the great master and doctor of the universe, orders such a person to be sick. , amputate a limb, or lose a child.According to the doctor's prescription in daily life, the patient swallowed one bitter medicine after another and endured one painful operation after another.Yet it is in the very remote hope of recovery that the patient willingly endures everything.Likewise, the patient hopes that the harshest prescriptions of God, the great Physician, will help his health and his ultimate luck and happiness.He may well have believed that these prescriptions were not only beneficial, but necessary to the health, prosperity, and happiness of all mankind, and to the carrying out and accomplishment of Jupiter's great plan.If it were not so, the Lord of the Universe would not have prescribed these prescriptions.The Omniscient Creator and Guide will not allow these things to happen.As all even the smallest complementary things in the universe fit each other perfectly, as they all contribute to the formation of one vast interconnected system, so all events, even seemingly meaningless series, follow one another Events of all kinds form a part, and are a necessary part, of the great chain of causality.These causal relations have no beginning or end, and as they all necessarily flow from the original arrangement and design of the whole universe, they are necessary not only for its prosperity, but for its continuation and preservation.Whoever does not sincerely accept whatever befalls him, whoever regrets whatever befalls him, whoever wishes it not to befall him, wishes to perpetuate and preserve the whole cosmic organism. To prevent the operation of the machine of the universe, to smash this continuous chain; whoever wants to disturb and destroy the operation of the machine of the whole world for his own little convenience.In another place he says: "O world! Everything that is right for you is right for me. Nothing is right for you that is too soon or too late for me. late.

Everything that comes with the change of seasons is a natural fruit for me.Being at your mercy is everything, being part of your wholeness is everything, being for your functioning is everything.Someone said, ah!Lovely city of Cyclops.Why don't you say, ah!Lovely paradise? " From these very eminent doctrines, the Stoics, or at least some of the Stoics, attempted to deduce their whole paradox. The Stoic wise men tried to understand the point of view of the great Lord of the universe, and tried to see things in the same light that this god used.But the various events which appear in the order of the great master of the universe, which appear to us insignificant or of great importance, are to the great master himself, as Mr. Pope says are as common as the bursting of soap bubbles; and, so, so to speak, of the destruction of a world, which are likewise parts of a great chain which he has arranged from the beginning of the world, all of the same kind of exactness. Wisdom, the result of one universal and boundless kindness.Again, to the Stoic wise man, all these different events are exactly the same.It is true that a small part of the course of these events was assigned to his own slight control and domination.In this part of the incident he acted as best he could, and did what he knew to be directed to him.But he was not anxious or deeply concerned about the success or failure of his most sincere endeavors.It does not matter to him at all whether that fraction of events, that fraction of the system for which he is somewhat responsible, goes very well or fails altogether.Had these events been at his disposal, he would have chosen some and discarded some; but as they were not his arrangement, he trusted a superior wise man, and felt quite Satisfaction, i.e., that the event (whatever it may be) that has taken place is exactly that which, if he knew all the connections and causal connections of events, he would wish it to happen with the utmost sincerity and ardor.Under the influence and guidance of these principles, everything he does is equally perfect.When he stretches out his fingers to signify what they are commonly used for, he performs an act as worthy and as admirable in every respect as that which he gave his life in the service of his country. and praise.As for this great master of the universe, the exercise of his power to the fullest and the little exercise of it, the creation and destruction of a world and the formation or bursting of a soap bubble, are as easy, as praiseworthy, as the same. For the Stoic wise what we call noble deeds require no greater effort than trivial deeds, and the former is as easy as the latter, Starting from the same principles, there is no place of greater value, nor should it be more praised and praised.

As all those who have attained this perfection are equally happy, so all those who are somewhat less than, however near they may come to this perfection, are equally unhappy.The Stoics say that since the man who is only an inch below the water cannot breathe as well as the man who is a hundred yards below the water, that man has not quite restrained his personal, partial, and selfish passions. the man, who has other burning desires than general happiness, who, by his eagerness to gratify personal, partial and selfish passions, is plunged into misery and confusion, and has not been able to fully emerge from this The man of the abyss, like the man far from the abyss, cannot breathe the air of freedom, nor enjoy the safety and happiness of the wise.As all the actions of this wise man are perfect and equally perfect, all those who have not attained this great wisdom are defective, and, as the Stoics profess, have the same flaws.As one truth, they said, could not be more true than another, and one falsity more false than another, so one act of honor could not be more honorable than another. Deeds have greater honour, and one shameful action has no greater disgrace than another.Because the man who misses the target by an inch misses the target as much as the man who misses by a hundred yards, acts inappropriately and without good reason in our presence which mean nothing to us The man who acts, inappropriately and without good reason, before us, is just as wrong.For example, a man who kills a rooster improperly and without good reason is as guilty as he who kills his own father improperly and without good reason.

If the first of these two paradoxes seems to be a sheer perversion, the second is clearly too absurd to merit serious examination.It is so ludicrous indeed that one cannot help but suspect that it has been misunderstood or misrepresented in some way.At any rate, I cannot bring myself to believe that such a supposedly simple and eloquent man as Zeno or Cleanthus could have been the creator of these or most of the other paradoxes of the Stoics.These paradoxes are usually mere digressive sophistry, which do little credit to their system, and I shall not prepare to proceed further.I am inclined to attribute these strange theories to the name of Chrysippus, who, indeed, was a disciple and follower of Zeno and Cleanthes, but, from all the writings about him that have come down to us, he seems Just a dialectic talker, devoid of any flavor or charm.He was probably the first to adapt their doctrines into an academic or technical system with artificial definitions, and his doing this may have been a means of extinguishing any moral or metaphysical doctrine which might exist in conscience. The best stopgap.Such a man may well be thought to have misinterpreted too rigidly the vivid expressions of his teachers in describing the happiness of the man of perfect virtue, and the misfortune of any man lacking it.

Generally speaking, the Stoics seem to have admitted that among those who have failed to achieve perfection of virtue and happiness, some may have achieved a certain degree.They divide these men into different classes according to the degree of their achievements; and they call some defective virtues, which they suppose such men are capable of, not righteous conduct, but regularity, propriety, decency. and proportionate actions, to which a plausible or likely rational name may be attached, Cicero expresses it by the Latin officia, and Seneca (I think more correctly) by the Latin conuenientia Express.The doctrine of those imperfect but attainable virtues seems to constitute what we may call the Stoic doctrine of practical morality.This is the subject of Cicero's On Responsibility.There is said to be another book on the subject written by Marcus Brutus, but that book is lost today.

The schemes and sequences outlined by the Creator to guide our actions seem to be quite different from what the Stoic philosophy taught. The Creator believes that those events which directly affect that small sphere which is more or less manipulated and directed by ourselves, those events which directly affect ourselves, our friends or our country, are the ones which concern us most and are the ones which greatly stimulate Events that arouse our desires and aversions, hopes and fears, joys and sorrows. If these passions are too strong--and they easily reach such a degree--the Creator will properly remedy and correct.The real, or even imagined, impartial spectator, the great judge within ourselves, is always present before us, to frighten these passions back into their temperate and proper moods and emotions. If, in spite of our best efforts, all those events which affect the little sphere under our control produce extremely unfortunate and catastrophic results, the Creator will never fail to give us some consolation.Not only the full appreciation of that person within us will bring us consolation, but, if possible, a higher and more generous principle, a firm trust and devout obedience to a benevolent wisdom, Consolation, this benevolent wisdom directs all events in the world, and we may trust that it would never tolerate such misfortunes if they were not necessary to the good of the whole. The Creator does not ask us to make this remarkable contemplation the great business and work of life.She just points out to us to take it as the consolation we can get in our misfortune.The Stoic philosophy, on the other hand, regards this kind of contemplation as the great business and work of life.This philosophy teaches us that no event (except in relation to the Passion, that sphere is that which we neither have nor should have any control or dominion, and which are governed by the great master of the universe.Stoic philosophy requires us to be absolutely indifferent, to strive to temper and eradicate all our personal, partial, and selfish emotions, and to forbid us to sympathize with any misfortune that may befall us, our friends, or our country, We are not even allowed to sympathize with the sympathetic but subdued passions of the impartial spectator, by which we try to render us indifferent and indifferent to the success or failure of all that God has appointed us to be the proper business and work of life. It can be said that although these philosophical assertions can make people's understanding more confused and confused, they must not interrupt the inevitable connection between the causes and their results established by the Creator.Those causes which naturally excite our desires and aversions, hopes and fears, joys and sorrows, must, in spite of all the judgments of the Stoics, produce in each individual his proper and inevitable result.However, the judgments of the inner man may be influenced to a great extent by these inferences, and this great occupant within us may be taught by these inferences to try to suppress all our personal, partial and selfish feelings, making them Diminished to a level of general calm.To guide the judgments of the man who dwells within us is the great purpose of all systems of moral doctrine.There is no doubt that Stoic philosophy had a great influence on the character and conduct of its followers; and though it may sometimes prompt them to use violence unnecessarily, its general tendency is to encourage them to be superhuman. noble deeds and beneficences of the greatest extent. IV. Besides these ancient systems of philosophy, there are also some modern ones, which hold that virtue consists in propriety, or in the propriety of sentiments.It is from this feeling that we act upon the cause or object which arouses it.Dr. Clark's philosophical system holds that virtue consists in acting according to the relation of things, in adjusting our actions to particular things or particular relations according to the reasonableness of our actions.Mr. Wollaston's philosophical system holds that virtue consists in acting in accordance with the truth of things, in accordance with their proper nature and essence, or in treating things as they are and not as they are false among. According to Shaftesbury's philosophical system, virtue consists in maintaining the proper balance of the passions, in not allowing any of the passions to exceed their proper range.All these philosophical systems are more or less wrong in describing the same basic concept. None of these philosophical systems proposes, nor even claims to offer, any definite or distinct measure of propriety or propriety by which sentiments can be ascertained or judged.Nowhere else can such definite or unambiguous measures be found but in the sympathy of the unbiased and informed spectator. Moreover, the descriptions of virtue, or at least the descriptions intended and prepared to be made by the various philosophical systems mentioned above—which some modern writers are not very fortunate to have in their own way—are as such descriptions , is undoubtedly very fair.There is no virtue without propriety.Where there is propriety, a certain degree of appreciation is due.But this description of virtue is incomplete.For, though propriety is an essential ingredient in every virtuous action, it is not always the only one.There is another quality in acts of beneficence, which therefore seem to deserve not only approval, but reward.No modern system of philosophy has succeeded or adequately accounted for the high respect which seems to be due to such benevolent acts, or the different sentiments which such acts naturally arouse.The description of evil is even more imperfect.It is also because, though impropriety is a necessary element in every crime, it is not always the only one.In the midst of all kinds of harmless and meaningless behavior, there is often something extremely absurd and inappropriate.Certain well-thought-out actions, which have an injurious tendency towards those with us, have a definite character besides impropriety, and thus seem to be not only blameworthy, but punishable; Not just an object of dislike, but an object of resentment and revenge.Nor has any modern system of philosophy successfully and adequately accounted for the heightened abhorrence we feel of such behaviour.CHAPTER TWO ON THE SYSTEMS THAT ARE CONSIDERED OF VITALITY IN PRINCIPLES Among those systems which have held virtue in prudence and have largely come down to us, the oldest is that of Epicureanism.However, the main principles of his philosophy are said to have been copied from some of the philosophers who had preceded him, especially from Aristippus.Notwithstanding this possibility, and notwithstanding the assertions of his enemies, at least his method of formulating those principles was entirely his own. According to Epicurus, only physical pleasures and pains are the primary objects of natural desires and aversions.He held that they were always the natural objects of these passions, desire and aversion, without needing to be proved.It is true that pleasure sometimes seems to be the object of avoidance, not because it is pleasure, but because, in enjoying it, we either lose greater pleasures, or suffer some pain.It is better to avoid such pain than to obtain the pleasure which one desires.In the same way, pain sometimes seems to be the object of choice, not because it is pain, but because by enduring it we avoid some greater pain, or gain some more important pleasure.Thus Epicurus holds that bodily pains and pleasures are always the natural objects of desire and aversion, and this is well-documented.Not only that, but he also believes that they are the only important objects of these passions.Whatever else is, according to him, the object of this desire or avoidance, it is because of its tendency to produce the former or the latter of the above-mentioned feelings of pleasure and pain.The tendency to produce pleasure makes power and wealth objects of desire; the tendency to produce pain, on the other hand, makes poverty and insignificance objects of dislike.Honor and fame are valued because the esteem and love of those with us are the most important things that keep us happy and spare us pain.On the contrary, shameless conduct and a bad reputation are objects to be shunned, because the hostility, contempt, and resentment of those with us destroy all security, and necessarily subject us to the greatest physical pain. According to Epicurus, inner pleasure and pain ultimately come from physical pleasure and pain.Thinking of some physical pleasures in the past makes me feel happy, and I hope to get other pleasures; but thinking of the pains I have endured in the past, I feel uncomfortable in my heart, and I am afraid of suffering the same or greater pain in the future. Although inner pleasures and pains ultimately derive from physical pleasures and pains, they are much broader than the original physical sensations.The physical body only feels the present moment, but the heart also feels the past and future.Using memory to feel the past, using anticipation to feel the future, as a result, the pain and pleasure are much wider than the original physical feeling.Epicurus said that when we suffer the greatest physical pain, if we pay attention, we can always find that what we suffer is not the pain that first tortured us before our eyes, but the painful memory of the past pain. Or more dreadful fear of future pain.Every present pain, considered only in itself, severed from all past and future pains, is a trifle, not worthy of attention.This, however, is all that is said to be physically bearable.In the same way, when we enjoy our greatest pleasures, we always find that this bodily sensation, this momentary sensation, is but a small part of our pleasure; Pleasant remembrances, or from still more pleasing expectations of future joys; and the heart always supplies the greatest share of such pleasures.