[I]. Why the systems of Plato and Aristotle failed to secure a hold on contemporary thought, [1]—Fate of the schools which they founded, [2]—Revival of earlier philosophies and especially of naturalism, [3]—Antisthenes and the Cynics, [4]—Restoration of naturalism to its former dignity, [6].
[II]. Zeno and Crates, [7]—Establishment of the Stoic school, [8]—Cleanthes and Chrysippus, [9]—Encyclopaedic character of the Stoic teaching, [9]—The great place which it gave to physical science, [10]—Heracleitean reaction against the dualism of Aristotle, [11]—Determinism and materialism of the Stoics, [12]—Their concessions to the popular religion, [14].
[III]. The Stoic theory of cognition purely empirical, [15]—Development of formal logic, [16]—New importance attributed to judgment as distinguished from conception, [16]—The idea of law, [17]—Consistency as the principle of the Stoic ethics, [18]—Meaning of the precept, Follow Nature, [19]—Distinction between pleasure and self-interest as moral standards, [20]—Absolute sufficiency of virtue for happiness, [21]—The Stoics wrong from an individual, right from a social point of view, [22]—Theory of the passions, [23]—Necessity of volition and freedom of judgment, [24]—Difficulties involved in an appeal to purpose in creation, [24].
[IV]. The Stoic paradoxes follow logically from the absolute distinction between right and wrong, [25]—Attempt at a compromise with the ordinary morality by the doctrines (i.) of preference and objection, [26]—(ii.) of permissible feeling, [27]—(iii.) of progress from folly to wisdom, [27]—and (iv.) of imperfect duties, [27]—Cicero’s De Officiis, [28]—Examples of Stoic casuistry, [29]—Justification of suicide, [30].
[V]. Three great contributions made by the Stoics to ethical speculation, (i.) The inwardness of virtue, including the notion of conscience, [31]—Prevalent misconception with regard to the Erinyes, [32]—(ii.) The individualisation of duty, 33—Process by which this idea was evolved, [35]—Its influence on the Romans of the empire, [36]—(iii.) The idea of humanity, [36]—Its connexion with the idea of Nature, [37]—Utilitarianism of the Stoics, [38].
[VI]. The philanthropic tendencies of Stoicism partly neutralised by its extreme individualism, [40]—Conservatism of Marcus Aurelius, [41]—The Stoics at once unpitying and forgiving, [42]—Humility produced by their doctrine of universal depravity, 42—It is not in the power of others to injure us, [43]—The Stoic satirists and Roman society, [44].
[VII]. The idea of Nature and the unity of mankind, [44]—The dynamism of Heracleitus dissociated from the teleology of Socrates, [46]—Standpoint of Marcus Aurelius, [46]—Tendency to extricate morality from its external support, [47]—Modern attacks on Nature, [48]—Evolution as an ethical sanction, [49]—The vicious circle of evolutionist ethics, [50]—The idea of humanity created and maintained by the idea of a cosmos, [51]—The prayer of Cleanthes, [52].
EPICURUS AND LUCRETIUSpages 53-119
[I]. Stationary character of Epicureanism, [53]—Prevalent tendency to exaggerate its scientific value, [55]—Opposition or indifference of Epicurus to the science of his time, [57].