Observations on the Tenth Book of Diogenes Laertius

The Philosophy of Epicurus, on Morals.

Character original: "τὸ ἦθος", derives from custom. Plutarch, supporting this, contends that moral virtues are called ethical original: "ηθικὰς", as if they were customary original: "εθικὰς" (so to speak). Certainly, since the term "Morals" encompasses both Virtues and Vices, and since almost everyone admits that Virtues are good habits and Vices are bad ones, it is established that habits are acquired through the custom of acting. I say "almost everyone" because there have been those who believed that virtue is prepared not by custom or teaching, but by In the Meno. nature alone, or by divine lot original: "θείᾳ μοίρᾳ", as Plato says. Although this may be true regarding virtue in its beginning stages, or the "seeds" of virtue, it seems that perfect and constant virtue cannot exist without teaching and the custom of acting rightly and honorably.

From this, it is understood that Ethics original: "τὴν ηθικὴν", the Moral part of Philosophy, is not merely speculative original: "θεωρητικὴν", as if it were situated in the naked contemplation of morals. Rather, it is truly active original: "πρακτικὴν". It is situated in the formation of character, imbuing it with honor and regulating it. It is, therefore, a science—or if you prefer, an art—of acting well and according to virtue. A human being can be viewed as an individual who takes care of themselves. Additionally, they may be one upon whom the care of a family rests, or one to whom the administration of the Republic belongs. Thus, a threefold kind of life is distinguished in which active Philosophy is engaged. However, it consists primarily in the first kind, because that is the most general foundation. One must be imbued with upright morals not only when living as a private citizen, but also when managing a household or the Republic. From this it follows that while the second kind is called domestic original: "οἰκονομικὸν" and the third political original: "πολιτικὸν", the first is called not so much solitary original: "μονασικὸν" but by the general term moral original: "ηθικὸν". This is because, even under the persona of a Father of a family or a Prince, there remains a private man who must otherwise be well-mannered. He will emerge all the more fit for ruling others the more he knows how to rule himself and command his own passions. Therefore, it is less surprising if Moral Philosophy consists chiefly in this: that it establishes the private morals of each person. Even by this alone, it attains the goal at which it aims, namely, to make a human being as happy as possible. For a person can only be judged happy to the extent that they are of upright character and free from disturbances of the mind, not only while a private citizen, but also while 1. Magna Moralia. presiding over others. And although Aristotle wishes Moral Philosophy to be a part of Politics, he does so only because morals are preferred above laws themselves. Politics aims not just for one or another person to live well and happily, but for everyone to do so if possible. Aristotle assumes elsewhere that the political man, to whom the care of making or protecting laws is committed, must himself be the virtuous man original: "τὸ σπουδαῖον", shaped by upright morals.

But lest I pursue this too at length now, it must be

On page 78.

noted here—something partly hinted at in the beginning and partly to be weighed in the Authorized Doctrines—that Epicurus valued Moral Philosophy so highly that he judged Physics should only be studied insofar as it is useful for removing certain disturbances. Thus, Physics leads toward Morals and their goal. Here, it is clear he looked to no one else but Socrates. It is recorded that Socrates, repudiating the Physics handed down from the time of Thales, Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, Book 5. called Philosophy down from heaven, placed it in cities, introduced it even into homes, and compelled it to inquire about life, morals, and things good and evil. From this, it may be that because Socrates's listeners Aristippus and Antisthenes (and the Cyrenaics and Cynics who came from them) utterly abandoned Physics and cultivated only Morals, they thought—along with Socrates—that one should inquire:

Whatever good or evil has been wrought in your halls. Laërtius, Book 6.

original Greek: "Ὅττι τοι ἐν μεγάροισι κακόν, τ’ ἀγαθόν τε τέτυκται." This is a quote from Homer's Odyssey often associated with the Socratic focus on domestic and personal ethics.

What happens in the house, perhaps evil or good. Socrates is therefore considered the inventor of Moral Philosophy. However, while this can be understood regarding a renewed and distinguished devotion to it, it cannot be said of its first origin. For before him, Pythagoras had held it in the highest regard. Hence, Pythagoras held the view recorded by Sermon 8. Stobaeus: The speech of that Philosopher is empty which heals no passion in a human being; for just as there is no use for medicine unless it drives diseases from the body, so there is no use for Philosophy unless it expels evil from the soul. Furthermore, the so-called Sages of Greece, who lived a little earlier, were called such for no other reason than that there was in them an eminent study of moral wisdom. Hence, even now, the moral sayings that they spread are on everyone's lips. Proceeding even further back to Heroic times, it was from the same study of Morals that Orpheus deterred forest-dwelling men:
Horace, The Art of Poetry.

From savage customs and a foul diet, Orpheus,
Said for this reason to soothe tigers and rabid lions:
So also Amphion was said, etc.

Indeed, as the same Poet who interprets these things adds:

— This was wisdom in former times,
To separate public things from private, sacred from profane;
To prohibit wandering lust, to give laws to the married:
To build towns, and to carve laws into wood.

From this, it follows that Cicero quite rightly 1. Tusculan Disputations. asks: What reason should we think there is why, since we consist of soul and body, an art was sought for the sake of curing and protecting the body, and its utility consecrated to the invention of the immortal Gods; yet the medicine of the soul was neither so much desired before it was found, nor so much cultivated after it was known, nor is it pleasing and approved by as many, being even suspected and hated by more? Yet one must not think that this medicine of the soul (that is, Moral Philosophy) is so recent an invention that it does not go back beyond human memory. Although it must be confessed on the other hand, that ever since Socrates philosophized, it has been both handed down and committed to writings more abun-