Module 4: After Classical Greece: From Hellenism to

the Fall of Rome to the Medieval Period

The Hellenistic Period

- This period occurred during Alexander the Great’s expansion of his Macedonian
empire, which also included the occupation of Classical Greece. It brought about
various notable Hellenistic schools of thought: The Stoics (founded by Zeno),
The Epicureans (founded by Epicurus), and The Cynics (founded by Diogenes),
as well as followers of either Plato and Aristotle, the Neo-Platonists and
Neo-Aristotelians respectively.
- The Hellenistic period was both turbulent and flourishing; turbulent because
Greece had succumbed to the Macedonians (who themselves celebrated Greek
culture), but more so flourishing in the sense that Alexander the Great’s
expansion led to multiculturalism in the Eastern colonies, making cultural
exchange possible. Thus this period was marked by significant cultural and
intellectual exchanges between the Greek world and the various regions that
were part of Alexander's empire, including Egypt, Persia, and India. Hellenistic
philosophy represents a diverse range of schools and thinker
- While most of these schools began during the Hellenistic period, most of these
persisted during the Roman empire.

Hellenistic Philosophies

1. Stoicism: Founded by Zeno of Citium (c. 334-262 BCE), Stoicism taught that
virtue and wisdom were the only true goods, and that one should live in
accordance with nature and reason. Stoics believed in self-control, emotional
resilience, and acceptance of what they could not control.
The Stoic school of philosophy was heavily influenced by the works and ideas
of Aristotle, particularly in the area of ethics and natural philosophy. :
Aristotle's ethical philosophy, as outlined in his Nicomachean Ethics, was
centered on the idea of living a life of virtue and achieving eudaimonia, often
translated as "happiness" or "flourishing."
The Stoics shared this emphasis on living a virtuous life as the path to true
well-being. They adopted Aristotle's concept of virtues and believed in the
importance of cultivating moral excellence.
Stoicism would later be adopted by the Roman emperor and philosopher Marcus
Aurelius during the later period of the Roman Empire.
2. Cynicism: Antisthenes (c. 445-365 BCE) and later Diogenes of Sinope (c.
412-323 BCE) were notable Cynics. Cynicism advocated a simple and ascetic
lifestyle, rejecting conventional social values and material possessions. They
aimed to live in accordance with nature and reason, similar to the Stoics.
Cynicism is characterized by a rejection of conventional social values, a focus
on personal virtue, and a simple, ascetic way of life
Cynicism advocates a minimalist and ascetic lifestyle. Cynics deliberately
eschew material wealth, comforts, and conventional luxuries. They live with the
bare necessities, often practicing extreme simplicity in clothing, food, and shelter.
This simplicity is intended to free them from the distractions and desires
associated with more opulent living.
Cynics reject many of the social norms, customs, and values of their time.
They view these conventions as superficial and often hypocritical. For instance,
Cynics may openly criticize social hierarchies, institutions, and the pursuit of
wealth and power.
Cynicism places a strong emphasis on personal virtue and moral integrity.
Cynics aim to live in accordance with their own ethical principles, which often
include honesty, self-sufficiency, and a commitment to truth.

3. Epicureanism: Founded by Epicurus (341-270 BCE), this school of thought

emphasized the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of pain. Epicureans
believed that the highest good was achieving a state of tranquility by minimizing
desires, seeking pleasure in moderation, and avoiding unnecessary fears, such
as the fear of death.
At the heart of Epicureanism is the belief that the highest good is the pursuit of
pleasure and the avoidance of pain. However, this pleasure is not understood
in a hedonistic or extravagant sense. Instead, Epicurus advocated for a life of
simple pleasures, tranquility, and the absence of physical and mental distress.
Epicureans believed in leading a simple and moderate life. They argued that
excessive desires, material wealth, and unnecessary indulgences often led to
pain and anxiety, and should be avoided. Simplicity and frugality were seen as
key virtues.
Epicureanism placed great importance on friendship, considering it a source
of emotional support and pleasure. Good friends were believed to contribute
significantly to one's happiness and well-being.
Roman Empire

Greece had fallen to the Romans during the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, and has since
then, up toward the fall of Rome, become a province of the Roman empire. Much like
the Macedonians, the Romans also put high regard on Greek culture, even adapting the
Greek gods for their own, as well as Philosophy of the ancient Greeks.

The Hellenistic Schools persisted towards the duration of the Roman Empire, and
new philosophical schools emerged, which were influenced by the Platonic and
Aristotelian philosophies.

The Stoicism of Marcus Aurelius (161–180 AD)

The philosophy of Marcus Aurelius is primarily associated with Stoicism, a school of

philosophy that emphasizes rationality, self-control, virtue, and living in accordance with
nature. Marcus Aurelius, a Roman Emperor from 161 to 180 CE, is perhaps one of the
most well-known Stoic philosophers. His philosophical ideas are best encapsulated in
his personal writings, a collection of meditations and reflections known as Meditations.
Like other Stoics, Marcus Aurelius believed that the highest good is living a virtuous life.
Virtue, according to Stoicism, consists of wisdom, courage, justice, and self-discipline.
These virtues are central to achieving a eudaimonic (flourishing) life.
Marcus Aurelius emphasized the importance of accepting the natural order of the
universe. He believed that many of life's challenges and difficulties were beyond one's
control, and individuals should learn to accept and adapt to these circumstances rather
than resisting them.
He advocated for introspection and self-examination. He believed that individuals
should regularly reflect on their own thoughts, actions, and values. This self-reflection
was a means to improve one's character and to live in accordance with the Stoic virtues.
Marcus Aurelius stressed that while external events and circumstances are often
beyond our control, we have control over our own reactions and responses to them. He
urged people to exercise self-discipline and rationality in their reactions to external
events. He encouraged being present in the moment and not dwelling excessively on
the past or worrying about the future. He believed that practicing mindfulness and
focusing on the here and now could lead to inner tranquility and peace. Marcus Aurelius
recognized the impermanence of all things, including life itself. He argued that an
awareness of our mortality should not be a source of fear but rather a reminder to live
virtuously and make the most of the time we have. As the Roman Emperor, he felt a
strong sense of duty and service to the Roman people. He saw his role as a leader as
an opportunity to exemplify Stoic principles, to act justly, and to serve the greater good.
Neoplatonism of Plotinus (240-270 AD)

Neoplatonism is a philosophical and metaphysical school of thought that emerged in the

3rd century CE, primarily associated with the philosopher Plotinus. Neoplatonism
represents a continuation and development of the ideas of Plato, particularly his
metaphysical and ethical teachings. Plotinus is considered the founder of Neoplatonism,
and his writings serve as the primary source for this philosophical tradition.
Neoplatonism was very prominent in late Antiquity (near the end of the Roman Empire),
extending its influence to St. Augustine’s philosophy.

At the heart of Plotinus's Neoplatonism is the concept of "The One'' or "The Good." This
transcendent, ineffable principle is the source and origin of all reality. It is beyond all
attributes, including being and non-being, and it is the ultimate unity from which
everything emanates.

Plotinus proposed a metaphysical model of emanation in which all levels of reality

proceed from the One. This emanation is a process of self-overflowing, and it gives rise
to a hierarchy of levels or "hypostases."
The first emanation from the One is the Nous (Intellect or Divine Mind), followed by the
Soul, and ultimately the material world.

The Nous, the second hypostasis in Plotinus's system, is the realm of pure thought
and the source of all intelligible principles. It contains the divine Forms or archetypal
ideas, and it is the realm of true knowledge and wisdom. The Nous is eternal and
unchanging.

The Soul, the third hypostasis, is the principle of life and motion. It bridges the gap
between the higher, immaterial realm of the Nous and the lower, material realm. The
Soul is responsible for the order and organization of the material world and is connected
to individual souls in the physical world.

The material world is the lowest level of reality in Plotinus's system. It is characterized
by multiplicity, change, and imperfection. The material world is a reflection of the higher
realms and is the realm where individual souls become entangled in physical existence.
For Plotinus, the ultimate goal of human existence is to return to the source, the
One. This return is achieved through philosophical contemplation, spiritual ascent, and
the purification of the soul. By transcending the material world and ascending through
the realms of the Soul and the Nous, the individual soul can ultimately reunite with the
One.
The Decline and Fall of Rome

The Roman empire dominated for centuries as the central power across the
Mediterranean. However centuries of stagnation, corruption, plague and outside forces
eroded the once dominant superpower.

Prior to the Fall of Rome, The Roman economy already faced numerous challenges,
including high taxation, inflation, and a heavy reliance on slave labor. The widespread
debasement of currency (reducing the silver content of coins) also contributed to
economic instability.
The Roman Empire faced external threats from various barbarian groups, including the
Visigoths, Vandals, Huns, and others. The Roman military struggled to defend the vast
borders of the empire, and internal political instability often undermined the army's
effectiveness.
The Roman Empire experienced frequent changes in leadership, including
assassinations and usurpations. The decline in the quality of emperors and the frequent
division of the empire into multiple regions with their own rulers weakened the central
authority. At one point, in 395, after the death of Theodosius I, The empire had divided
into the Western Roman Empire, and the Eastern Roman Empire (whose capital
became Constantinople, modern day Istanbul).
Barbarian Invasions

The migrations and invasions of various barbarian groups into Roman territory put
immense pressure on the Western Roman Empire. In AD 410, the Visigoths, under
Alaric, sacked Rome, and in AD 455, the Vandals looted the city.

The Western Roman Empire finally fell in AD 476 when Odoacer, a Germanic chieftain,
deposed the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustulus. This event is often considered
the symbolic end of the Western Roman Empire, although the eastern part (Byzantine
Empire) continued to exist for nearly a millennium. The Eastern Empire endured for
much later, only succumbing to the Ottoman Empire an entire millennium after, during
the Middle Ages, in 1453 at the fall of Constantinople.

The Medieval Period: key characteristics

The Fall of Rome marked the start of a new era of Philosophy, coinciding with the new
era in Western history, popularly known as the Middle Ages or the Medieval period,
lasting from the Fall of Rome in 476 up until the Renaissance in the 14th century.

It is often difficult to paint the entire Middle Ages into one color, because it lasted such a
long time, and each century and each location in Europe had different experiences.
Likewise for the ease of discussion, we can only make a few generalizations.

Decentralization of Power and Feudalism

Unlike the Roman Empire which recognized a central authority in most of Europe, the
Medieval period was characterized by a scattered and territorial squabble for lands,
territories for ethnic groups, lordship and serfdom and kingdoms. From the European
perspective, this was often characterized negatively because of the absence of such
central authority. Unlike during Roman rule in which there was a clear emperor, authority
often resided with the lord or king.

Feudalism was the dominant social and political system in medieval Europe. It was
characterized by a hierarchical structure in which monarchs, or kings, granted land and
authority to local nobles (lords or vassals) in exchange for military service and loyalty.
This decentralized system led to the fragmentation of authority, with numerous local
lords exercising significant autonomy within their domains.
Medieval Europe was divided into numerous independent and semi-autonomous
political entities, including kingdoms, duchies, principalities, city-states, and bishoprics.
Each of these entities had its own local rulers, laws, and systems of governance, and
there was often little central authority beyond the immediate vicinity of a ruler's court.

The Catholic Church

Political Power of the Church: From a religious and Western perspective, the Catholic
Church was at the height of its political power. The Bishop of Rome, known as the
Pope, emerged as a powerful religious and political figure within the Western Christian
world. The papacy provided a sense of religious authority and unity, and the Pope was
considered the supreme spiritual leader of the Western Christian Church.

Monasticism: Monasticism also flourished with the founding of the Benedictine order
founded on 529 AD, which became the blueprint for Western monasticism.
Many popular religious orders followed during these time periods, such as the
Augustinian order (1244, founded long after St. Augustine’s death in 430), and the 2
popular mendicant orders, the Dominicans (1216) and Franciscans (1209).

Medieval monks also became scholars of the time period, constantly preserving and
rewriting not only the Church documents but even classical texts from the Ancient world.
Monks pursued the fields of philosophy, theology and even the sciences during a time
when the majority of the European masses were illiterate. They took the role of scholars
and academics.

Likewise most notable philosophers in the Western world during this era were members
of the clergy. Additionally, Scholasticism, a system of theology and philosophy taught in
medieval European universities became popular, for its Aristotelian influence. The most
notable of the Scholastics was St. Thomas Aquinas.

*Islamic Golden Age in the Middle East

It must be noted that the Arab world was flourishing scientifically, mathematically and
philosophically during these times in what is called the Islamic Golden Age (8th-13th
century).
It was during this time in the Arab world that there was a revival of Aristotelian
philosophy, which had previously been almost lost during the Roman period. Arab
philosophers such as Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, and Avicenna (Ibn Sina) wrote commentaries
on Aristotle's works, often combining Aristotelian thought with Islamic theology and
philosophy. Avicenna’s writings would eventually reach the Scholastics such as
Thomas Aquinas and Albert the Great, who adopted Aristotle’s metaphysics to
Christian theology.

Notable Philosophers during the Medieval Period:

1. St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430): A significant figure in early Christianity,

Augustine's writings on theology, ethics, and human nature profoundly influenced
Western thought.

2. Boethius (c. 480-524): Known for his work "The Consolation of Philosophy,"
Boethius blended classical and Christian ideas, discussing topics like fate, free
will, and the nature of reality.

3. St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109): Anselm is renowned for his ontological

argument for the existence of God and his contributions to scholastic theology.

4. Peter Abelard (1079-1142): Abelard was a prominent scholastic philosopher and

theologian, known for his work on logic, ethics, and his controversial love affair
with Heloise.

5. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): A preeminent figure in scholasticism,

Aquinas is famous for his synthesis of Christian theology and Aristotelian
philosophy, as well as his "Summa Theologica."

6. John Duns Scotus (c. 1266-1308): A prominent scholastic philosopher, Scotus

made significant contributions to metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology.

7. William of Ockham (c. 1287-1347): Known for Ockham's Razor, a principle of

parsimony, he was a major figure in late medieval scholasticism.

8. St. Bonaventure (c. 1221-1274): A Franciscan theologian and philosopher,

Bonaventure emphasized the role of emotions and mysticism in his writings.

9. St. Albert the Great (c. 1200-1280): A teacher of Thomas Aquinas, Albertus
Magnus was a prominent medieval scholar who made contributions to various
fields, including natural philosophy.

10. Avicenna (Ibn Sina) (980-1037) and Averroes (Ibn Rushd) (1126-1198): Though
not European, these Islamic philosophers' works were influential in the medieval
period, and their commentaries on Aristotle had a profound impact on medieval
Western thought.
Module 5
Medieval Philosophy: St. Augustine

Philosophy and Faith: The Life and Works of St. Augustine

The life of Augustine marks an epoch in the history of ideas. In his early life he imbibed
from several sources philosophical ideas of various traditions, but especially the
Platonic tradition, whether in the sceptical version of the New Academy or in the
metaphysical version of Neoplatonism.

After his baptism Augustine remained in Italy for a year and a half. In this period he
wrote a further brief tract on the immortality of the soul, and a more substantial work, On
the Freedom of the Will, which we encountered in the first volume of this history. In 388
he returned to Africa and for the next few years lived the life of a private gentleman in
his home town of Tagaste. In 391 he found his final vocation and was ordained priest,
becoming soon after bishop of Hippo in Algeria, where he resided until his death in 430.

Augustine was a copious writer, and has left behind some 5 million words. Much of his
output consists of sermons, Bible commentaries, and controversial tracts about theology
of Church discipline. He no longer wrote philosophical pieces comparable to those of
the years of his conversion. But a number of his major works contain material of high
philosophical interest.

Augustine’s Confessions

In 397 Augustine wrote a work entitled Confessions: a prayerful dialogue with God
tracing the course of his life from childhood to conversion. It is not an autobiography of
the normal kind, though it is the foundation specimen of the genre. Besides being the
main source of our knowledge of Augustine’s pre-episcopal life, it contains many
incidental philosophical reflections and concludes with a full-fledged monograph on the
nature of time. Its enchanting style has always made it the most popular of Augustine’s
works.
Augustine’s On the Trinity

Between 400 and 417 Augustine worked on another masterpiece, Fifteen books entitled
On the Trinity. The earlier books of the treatise are largely concerned with the analysis
of biblical and ecclesiastical texts concerning the mystery of three persons in one God.
Philosophers find matter of much greater interest in the subtle portrayal of human
psychology employed in the later books in the course of a search for an analogy of the
heavenly Trinity in the hearts and minds of men and women

Augustine on History: The City of God

The most massive and most laborious of Augustine’s works was The City of God, on
which he worked from 413 to 426. Written at a time when the Roman Empire was under
threat from successive barbarian invasions, it was the first great synthesis of classical
and Christian thought. This is implicit in the very title of the work. The Christian gospels
have much to say about the Kingdom of God; but for Greece and Rome the paradigm
political institution was not the kingdom but the city. Even emperors liked to think of
themselves as the First citizens of a city; and the philosophical emperor Marcus
Aurelius thought the city we should love above all was the city of Zeus. The City of God
sets Jesus, the crucified King of the Jews, at the apex of the idealized city-state of
pagan philosophy.

Like Aristotle in his Metaphysics. Augustine surveys the history of philosophy from the
distant days of Thales, showing how earlier philosophers approximated to, but fell short
of, the truth that he now presents. But whereas Aristotle was mainly interested in the
physical theories of his predecessors, Augustine is concerned above all with their
philosophical theology—their ‘natural’ theology, as he called it, giving currency to an
expression with a long history ahead of it (DCD VIII. 1–9). Throughout the work
Augustine sets Christian teaching side by side with the best of ancient philosophy, and
especially with the writing of his favourites, the Neoplatonists, whom he regarded as
almost-Christians (DCD VIII. 8–9)
Reading Material: Human Freedom and Divine Providence,
excerpts from The City of God

You can find this text in our handout “Readings on Medieval Philosophy”.

Key concepts:
Free Will, Original Sin, Divine Grace, Predestination, Divine Providence, Human
Choice, Moral Responsibility, Compatibilitist View

Key questions:
1. Is man truly free?
2. If God knows what man will do, would that make man’s fate predetermined?

Cicero’s argument (As cited by Augustine)

➔ Cicero (106–43 BC) in De Divitatione attacks the notion of predeterminism by
denying that there is any knowledge of future events. In other words, Cicero
argues that gods (or our God) cannot know future events.
➔ He denies any means of foreknowledge by attacking (argumentatively) the
validity of oracles and the gods.
➔ He ultimately also denies the capacity of God to have foreknowledge (to know
the future).
Augustine on Cicero
➔ Augustine (354-430 AD) asserts that Cicero fears the idea of having
foreknowledge because it goes against the notion of free will or human freedom:

What is it, then, that Cicero feared in the prescience of future things?
Doubtless it was this - that if all future things have been foreknown,
they will happen in the order in which they have been foreknown; and if
they come to pass in this order, there is a certain order of things
foreknown by God; and if a certain order of things, then a certain order of
causes, for nothing can happen which is not preceded by some efficient
cause. But if there is a certain order of causes according to which
everything happens which does happen, then by fate, says he, all things
happen which do happen. But if this be so, then is there nothing in our
own power, and there is no such thing as freedom of will; and if we
grant that, says he, the whole organization of human life is subverted.
(309)
➔ Of course Augustine cannot simply accept Cicero’s argument because to do so
would be denying God’s omniscience (all-knowingness). And for Augustine “one
 who is not prescient of all future things is not God.” (310) Augustine asserts that
we must accept both God’s foreknowledge and our own free will as coexistent:

He (Cicero) therefore, like a truly great and wise man, and one who
consulted very much and very skilfully for the good of humanity, of those
two chose the freedom of the will, to confirm which he denied the
foreknowledge of future things; and thus, wishing to make men free, he
makes them sacrilegious. But the religious mind chooses both,
confesses both, and maintains both by the faith of piety. But how so
says Cicero; for the knowledge of future things being granted, there
follows a chain of consequences which ends in this, that there can be
nothing depending on our own free wills. (309)

Augustine’s argument
➔ Augustine believed that God’s foreknowledge and man’s free will do not
necessarily contradict:

But it does not follow that, though there is for God a certain order of all
causes, there must therefore be nothing depending on the free exercise of
our own wills, for our wills themselves are included in that order of causes
which is certain to God, and is embraced by his foreknowledge (310)

➔ Are our wills ruled by necessity? Even in times when something does not go
our way (by any circumstance), our ability to will things is not lost. Kahit na
sabihin nating may sumagabal sa gusto nating gawin, alam natin sa sarili natin
na gusto pa rin nating gawin ‘yon; kaya ibig sabihin, hindi nawala ang kakayahan
natin na gustuhing gawin ang isang bagay. Augustine states that:

- Our wills, therefore, exist as wills, and do themselves whatever we

do by willing, and which would not be done if we were unwilling.
- But when any one suffers anything being unwilling, by the will of another,
even in that case the will retains its essential validity - we do not mean the
will of the party who inflicts the suffering, for we resolve it into the power of
God.
- For if a will should simply exist, but not be able to do what it wills, it would
be overborne by a more powerful will.
 ➔ Even when God knows what we are willing, his ability to know what we will do
does not restrict our power to will. Kahit na alam ng Diyos kung ano ang gusto
nating gawin, hindi ito sagabal sa kakayahan nating gumawa ng desisyon.

- Therefore, whatsoever a man suffers contrary to his own will, he

ought not to attribute to the will of men, or of angels, or of any created
spirit, but rather to His will who gives power to wills.
- It is not the case, therefore, that because God foreknew what would be in
the power of our wills, there is for that reason nothing in the power of our
wills.
- Moreover, if He who foreknew what would be in the power of our wills did
not foreknow nothing, but something, assuredly, then even though He did
foreknow, there is something in the power of our wills.
- Therefore we are by no means compelled, either, retaining the prescience
(foreknowledge) of God, to take away the freedom of the will, or, retaining
the freedom of the will, to deny that He is prescient of future things, which
is impious. But we embrace both. We faithfully and sincerely confess
both.
- A man does not therefore sin because God foreknew that he would sin.
No. it cannot be doubted but that it is the man himself who sins when he
does sin, because He, whose foreknowledge is infallible, foreknew not that
fate, or fortune, or something else would sin, but that the man himself
would sin, who, if he wills not, sins not. But if he shall not will to sin, even
this did God foreknow.

My explanation:
- Augustine is faced with a contradiction: a. God knows everything, even what we’re going
to do and what will happen. Does that mean all of our actions and future actions are
predestined? If so, does that mean we have no free will?
- Cicero, centuries before Augustine, answers this dilemma by saying that gods in fact do
NOT know our future actions. Of course in the context of our Christian belief, this
statement is blasphemous, and therefore, Augustine disagrees with Cicero. For
Augustine, and for all of us Christians, God indeed knows all.
- Augustine believed that God’s ability to know our future actions (foreknowledge), does
NOT at all contradict with our human will. We are free to do those actions; God knows
but he will not intervene. Even in circumstances where we feel like we are held against
our will, for example we cannot use our cellphones and gadgets because of seminary
rules, do we not still have the will or desire to use our cellphones? Therefore that ability
will, and to have desires was never taken away from us.
- Thus Augustine argues that God is Supreme and true, and that his omnipotence and
omniscience does not at all restrict man’s ability to will. He has given human beings a
rational soul with the powers of intelligence and will.