A hot topic in ancient philosophy was how best to live your life, what it meant to live a good life. One school of thought that attempted to answer this question was the school of cynicism.

First thing to note is the meaning of cynicism in the ancient world does not mean what it means today. The term derives from the ancient Greek to describe someone as dog-like, one who is free and shameless to do as he pleases. This points to the actual philosophy of Cynicism: The good life is to be lived in accordance with nature and in opposition to convention.

To flesh this out further:
- Rebel against social convention such as money, status, fame and honour - Live free, shamelessly - Ascetic life: reduce material aspects of life to the utmost simplicity and to a minimum. This may include minimal, simple clothing, sleeping on a floor or in caves, and eating a simple, minimal amount of food

Key points

• Virtue is sufficient for happiness and both are within your power
• Social status, where your were born, whether you are poor or rich are irrelevant
• Live in nature as rational animals that we are
• Human nature is at odds with human society, society yields unnatural desires and burdens
• We should be able to do what we want, when we want, where we want

The stoics take on the same ideas as the Cynics (defying social convention and living in accordance with nature), the 2 main rules the stoics follow: detachment from external circumstances and living in harmony with nature. Though defying convention was part of the Stoic fabric, it was adhered to in a more conservative fashion than their Cynic counterparts.

They sought the highest good which is virtue apatheia - A way of living that isn’t burdened by emotions. Achieving apatheia is having rational control of the emotions. The Stoics saw the passions as confused ideas that required reasoning to formulate them into distinct and clear ideas

How does this translate in practice? Reason gives you the ability to handle circumstances beyond your control, you gain a rational detachment to achieve the best possible situation for yourself. Cicero gives the following example, albeit, an extreme one: A virtuous man even while being tortured on the rack, his body mutilated and searing with pain, and isolated from all his family and friends, is maximally happy.

In terms of epistemology, The Stoics also take an empiricist approach and say that all that exists is particulars - there are no immaterial forces, anything we can learn from is material. Just like Hume, the Stoics deny innate ideas and contend that the mind is “tabula rasa”: a blank slate.

What is it that makes the individual Just? And, by extension, what makes a just society? To understand this, we must understand how the individual operates and this lies in the tripartite soul. For Plato, justice extends from the “excellence of the soul”

How does he define the soul? He says it is made of 3 parts:

The Reason: is the part attached to knowledge and truth. This is the part the governs over the other 2 parts and should be the highest power. At best - wisdom

The Spirit: Honour/ambition/drive. It’s best form - Courage

The Appetite: desire (thirst, hunger, sex, pleasure). It’s best form - Temperance

Once we achieve harmony in the soul, adhering to the best possible state of each part, we can then know justice.

Plato applies his outline of the just soul to the just state by defining the parts of the state.

Reason = Knowledgeable rulers, that have wisdom. This encompasses ethics also. The spirit = The guardians (soldiers/police) The appetite = the workers

Key points

• There is a difficulty in pin-pointing an exact definition of spirit and what it actually encompasses
• If disharmony of the state favours spirit - honour and victory, if it favours appetite - wealth and money
• Can we be just if we favour the lesser parts of the soul

The ancient Pyrrhonist is an extreme skeptic who suspends judgment from all theories because all philosophical beliefs or doctrines cannot be conclusively justified. The attempt to justify judgements leads to an infinite regress.

The Pyrrhonist will not give in to demands of believing in a theory even if they are 'certified' as truth. He will act according to his natural instincts and the practice of ordinary life, he will abstain from attempting to discover a deeper truth behind appearances.

So what is there to gain from suspending judgement? Tranquility. However, his suspension of judgement is not just making a cautious and deliberate decision, it’s from the realisation that looking for deeper truths is fruitless… knowledge is impossible. No matter the theory or conclusion, the skeptic can always ask “well, is that really so?”

In Ancient Greece, Protagoras held the view that “Man is the measure of all things”; he is taking the relativist view that any claim to knowledge or any judgement in the world is relative to our point of view. He is saying that all the moral values we have and truths are ultimately subjective, we depend on ourselves to come up with definitions as there is no such thing as absolute moral ideals or objective knowledge.

For example, Is it acceptable to slaughter cows? The butcher and those that work with leather would say yes, Those that practice Hinduism or advocate animal rights would say no. Who is correct here? The relativist would say they all are, in accordance with their established beliefs. There is no universal law in nature that says we should act a certain way.