Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://olympias.lib.uoi.gr/jspui/handle/123456789/6435Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Παπαδημητρίου, Μαρία | el |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2015-11-11T11:20:44Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2015-11-11T11:20:44Z | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://olympias.lib.uoi.gr/jspui/handle/123456789/6435 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.26268/heal.uoi.9488 | - |
| dc.rights | Default License | - |
| dc.subject | Μάρκος Τύλλιος Κικέρων | el |
| dc.subject | Εκλεκτισμός | el |
| dc.subject | Ελληνιστική φιλοσοφία | el |
| dc.subject | Η φύση των Θεών | el |
| dc.title | Η κατακλείδα του De Natura Deorum (Ν. D. 3.95) και η φιλοσοφική ταυτότητα του Κικέρωνα | el |
| heal.type | journalArticle | - |
| heal.type.en | Journal article | en |
| heal.type.el | Άρθρο περιοδικού | el |
| heal.generalDescription | σ. [141]-176 | el |
| heal.generalDescription | Περίληψη στα αγγλικά | el |
| heal.classification | Cicero, Marcus Tullius, 106-43 B. C. | el |
| heal.classification | Κικέρων, Μάρκος Τύλλιος , 106-43 π.Χ.--Κριτική και ερμηνεία | el |
| heal.dateAvailable | 2015-11-11T11:21:44Z | - |
| heal.language | el | - |
| heal.access | free | - |
| heal.recordProvider | Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων. Βιβλιοθήκη και Κέντρο Πληροφόρησης | el |
| heal.publicationDate | 2003 | - |
| heal.bibliographicCitation | Περιλαμβάνει βιβλιογραφικές παραπομπές | el |
| heal.abstract | Aim of the present article is to study a well - discussed inconsistency observed in N.D.: Although Cicero declares that he is an Academic, in the conclusion of N.D. he regards the argumentation of Balbus, the Stoic representative, as ad veritatis similitudinem propensior. After a thorough examination of all the suggestions made so far was carried out, T ended up agreeing with those scholars who believe that in N.D. Cicero, as he himself points out in the preface, applies faithfully Academia’s methods, as taught to him by Philo of Larissa, whose moderate scepticism he was following. Consequently the conclusion of N.D. is in harmony with these methods. Cicero as an Academic feels free to express in a positive light any view of all the philosophical schools, provided that he characterises that view as probable, after a detailed research of all the views on the subject-matter under discussion is conducted. Nevertheless I called attention to the fact that it is Balbus’ argumentation that Cicero regards as probable and not the Stoic theology as a whole. The examination of this specific unity led me to the conclusion that, although it is quite probable that Greek sources exist, yet one can clearly discern Cicero’s intervention. Furthermore, I stated the hypothesis that Cicero develops his own eclecticism which is defined by two main factors, namely Roman tradition and Plato’s principles. Thus, within Balbus’ argumentation, Cicero combines the views of the Stoic Eclectics with those of Plato and Aristotle which are in tune with the Roman religion and tradition. I accept the claim made by several scholars that Cicero prefers this particular argumentation, because he is convinced that belief in the existence of God and especially in Divine Providence is the foundation upon which a well - governed society is based as well as a guarantee of the future and the prosperity of Res Publica Romana. Furthermore I suggested that Cicero wrote N.D. and, what is more, saw to a positive conclusion, because he wanted the N.D. either to become a response to some philosophical works, especially in physics - theology, widely circulated in Rome of his time, or to rival them. Namely there was a large number of Epicurean works, of which their principles as harmful for Roman morals. Among them it is Lucretius’ De rerum natura, a masterpiece with a wide popularity, especially among the elit, published due to the contribution of Cicero himself. Secondly there was Varro’s Antiquitates rerum humanarum et divinarum (especially the books on res divinae), who was an adherent of Antiochus of Ascalon, with whom Cicero shared views on religion, even though they belonged to different trends within Academia. Finally T made the suggestion that, by means of Philo’s method, Cicero gives precedence to an argumentation that aligns with Antiochus’ perceptions, probably because his aim was to show to his fellow - Academics of both trends, and especially to Varro and Brutus — to whom N.D. is dedicated —, the efficiency of Philo’s methods and, as a result, Academia’s unity, an idea preached by Philo and adopted by Cicero. | en |
| heal.publisher | Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων. Φιλοσοφική Σχολή. Τμήμα Φιλολογίας | el |
| heal.journalName | Δωδώνη: Φιλολογία: επιστημονική επετηρίδα του Τμήματος Φιλολογίας της Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής του Πανεπιστημίου Ιωαννίνων; Τόμ. 32 (2003) | el |
| heal.journalType | peer-reviewed | - |
| heal.fullTextAvailability | true | - |
| Appears in Collections: | Τόμος 32 (2003) | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Η κατακλείδα του De Natura Deorum (N. D. 3, 95) και η φιλοσοφική ταυτότητα του Κικέρωνα.pdf | 28.52 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License
