Cicero: On the Nature of Gods
Cicero
Hellenistic period: late antiquity, after aristotle. Cicero lived here, three schools (claiming to
come from Socrates and Aristotle). until 30bc. Roman empire grows.
Cicero started philosophy in Rome with Epicurean, stoic and skeptic professors. The most
important period in his study was when he traveled to Athens and befriended Antiochus. The
guy was an academic skeptic but noticed that skepticism and academic doctrines are
similar. He discussed with Epicureans (Zeno), befriended Marcus Piso (Aristotelian) and met
important stoics. Thus he learned a lot of different doctrines. Later, he started a political
career in Rome.
Cicero likes Greek philosophy and wants to translate it to Latin so Romans can experience it
too. Since he was one of the first ones to do so, he shaped many words in roman vocabulary
(making him not merely a translator, but a creator too!). This makes it accessible for his time
and brings it into culture.
His translation work is very valuable because it serves as an encyclopedia of philosophical
knowledge, which is especially great now that many original works are lost.
However, Romans are better at certain virtues already and are closer to nature due to being
unschooled. Greek customs would take them farther from their nature. While the Greeks
developed everything in detail, they strayed away from their initial scope. Romans develop it
but never lose track of that scope.
Cicero also criticizes how many writers wrote very similar things, resulting in many of the
same books. This can be seen as criticism of philosophical schools, since that often led to
pupils defending their teacher, instead of developing an original argument/standpoint.
Cicero criticizes how previous latin philosophers (epicureans) couldn’t express themselves
properly
Cicero goes back to writing dialogues (400bc), which would write about historical characters
exposing their doctrines. He himself plays the main character and argues for his opinion
while the secondary characters are, instead, contemporaries who expose doctrines (We
don’t even know whether they actually held their beliefs!)
He uses these dialogues because they present multiple views and the readers can judge for
themselves which are the most convincing.
Cicero thought philosophy is the medicine of the soul: we are constantly sick and become
more vicious by society, but can be partially cured by philosophizing so that we can find
wisdom through living according to our nature (reason). This pursuit towards reason is one
of the ways Cicero deals with grief of losing his daughter.
Cicero wrote On the Nature of Gods to moderate religion. Roman religion required people to
actively participate. It didn’t matter if you believed or not, you just had to partake. This is
because Romans believed that their military success had to do with divine favoring from
Roman gods watching over the state. In Cicero’s time, people thought the Gods were upset
because they had less military success. Cicero was an augur and often had to oversee such
practices and rituals. Hence he wants to discuss whether this makes sense or not.
,What Cicero then asks is: ‘Do Gods govern the world, and do they care about humans or
not?’. If the Gods do not care, they might just as well not exist. This is important since this
dictates whether we are living virtuous/happy lives or not.
Introduction:
Opinions differ
1,2 Philosophers have differing opinions on the nature of the gods, stretching from
disagreement on the way they work to outright denial or full acceptance of their existence.
This is strange since they hold such uncertain beliefs while we are discouraged to accept
something that might be false.
3 Some think gods do not influence us at all, but that cannot be since there must be some
reason why we have piety and religion. If the gods can’t affect us at all, those values will
disappear, leaving us in disorder and confusion.
4,5 Others think the Gods have made everything around us so we can use it (Carneades).
This is so different from its opposite, and because only one belief can be true it has gotten
both good and bad criticism.
Reasons for writing/method
6 He has been criticized for his sudden philosophical writing and his lack of positive opinions
on things. however, he has been in the field for quite some time,
7 He suddenly started writing because he wanted to keep himself busy during retirement and
thought he could do so best by spreading important thought so people still learn something
under the inevitable autocratic government that would arise.
8 He wants to continue because he has seen others become stimulated by his works and
become authors as well, despite latin translation being looked down upon (he thinks its fine).
9 This occupation also helps him deal with the death of his daughter. He prefers compiling
many philosophical opinions instead of merely reading them since that makes it so you can
easily see the whole system of mutually connected topics.
10 He doesn’t want to give his own opinion since that often hinders formation of one’s own
judgment. He points to pythagoreans who explained everything by referring to P.
11 He states that he doesn’t think of himself as being the main man of his method since old
ideas don't die when their owners do. E.g: Socrates' dialogue has continued even when he
was dead.
12 He also doesn’t think his method is the best since in the end, philosophers have to see
questions from all sides, using all methods, anyway. He doesn’t claim to have seen all sides
but has attempted it. He explains his method as ‘all true sensations are intertwined with false
ones making it so we are always fallible in our judgment of which one is right and wrong. We
can only talk about probability because of that.
13 Because opinions on the nature of the gods differ, cicero would like to apply his method
so that the reader can draw its own judgment.
14 From our final judgment we can then deliver verdicts on things stemming from it:
regarding rituals, honor, loyalty, etc.
, Introducing the friends
15 The diversity in opinions hit cicero hard when visiting his friend Cotta (student of Philo
who was a moderate skeptic), who was in debate with an epicurean (Velleius) and a stoic
(Balbus).
16 Together, these are three leaders of schools of philosophers. Cicero misses Piso, but
Cotta says Antiochus’ new book with criticism on stoicism would suffice (probably represents
Piso?). Cotta asks Balbus what he thinks. Balbus is surprised that the book fails to properly
distinguish stoicism from peripatos (aristotle walking school)
17 Balbus shifts the subject to the nature of the gods and asks Velleius what epicurus would
think about the subject. Velleius notes that Cotta got reinforcement in Cicero, but cicero
states that he’ll only be listening and won’t argue for a fixed opinion.
Velleius criticizing stoicism and academia
18 Velleius speaks with confidence as if he has seen the gods himself.
19 He denounces Plato’s and the stoics’ views on religion as being baseless and dreams.
Plato described the universe’s structure but can’t explain how this worked and which
processes took place.
20 The strangest thing, Velleius thinks, is that Plato thinks the world does have a beginning,
but no end. Meanwhile, he accuses the stoics of having no reason on the similar processes
Plato forgets to describe. Why is the world mortal, and not everlasting as Plato described?
21 He also asks why the world was suddenly created by the gods after infinitely long waiting
(time still ticks when the world doesn’t exist since it is inconceivable that there is a time
where time doesn’t exist).
22 it cant be because of energy conservation since gods dont have energy. if it was as
decoration, why didnt the gods decorate earlier and how can a god even take pleasure in
such things?
23 or was it all designed for our sake? If so, why would they do a service to the “wicked” (we
are imperfect) and how does it help us in the end since we are all suffering anyway.
24 He goes deeper on Plato claiming that an immortal&blessed being must be circular due
to that being the most beautiful and argues that he prefers pretty much any other shape. The
fact that this god-ball spins should cause him harm makes it so the ball probably isnt that
steadfast and happy. Since the earth is part of the world, it must be part of god, with areas
on earth being assigned to gods’ limbs. But these areas change so how does that happen?
Are gods mutable?
25 He moves away from Platonic school towards older systems, which thought everything
was made out of water, supposing that the mind had been there prior. But since the mind is
used to make water, yet comes from water, shouldn’t that be a first principle instead? And
how can we think of god as not living forever (Anaximander’s thought).
26 Anaximenes held that air is god. Later Anaxagoras thought the world was made by some
infinite being’s rational power, but infinite activities don’t exist and sensation can only occur
when the subject is sentient. Also, if this were a living creature, it must have some principle it
follows to justify his actions.
27 Alemaeon ascribed immortality to mortal things: the moon, sun and the soul. Pythagoras
believed that our souls are part of god’s, but that’d make it so if one soul is unhappy a part of
god is unhappy, which is impossible.
28 Also, if we are part of god, why aren’t we omniscient? If god is pure soul, how is he
spread around the world? Xenophanes thought the universe was god due to being infinite,
