St. Augustine of Hippo.   Does anyone not know who Augustine was?   Bishop of Hippo, writer of such works as "On Free Will"  "Confessions" and "On the City of God".   Augustine was a man that my son spent a great deal of time learning about last year through Veritas Press.   Born of a Christian mother, she prayed for his conversion which happened when he was 32 years old.     Archbishop Ambrose was instrumental in attracting him to the Christian Faith.

But what did Augustine believe?  How did he form his thinking?

Augustine is an important part of both Catholic and Protestant faiths due to his theological writings.   He was a fiery speaker and an excellent writer. 

He believed both in the predestination of man and in free will.

One of the things that Augustine believed was that God was not the parent of evil.   He formulated this train of thought.
People are rational beings.
As rational people, we must have free will.
Having free will means that we are able to CHOOSE between doing good and evil.
Therefore we act either in Goodness or Evilness.
God is not parent of evil.

Evil was defined less as an object or a thing, but more of a lack of something.   For instance, the evil of a blind man is that he cannot see, the evil of a thief is that he lacks honesty.   People queried though... why is there evil???   God made us a rational people.   AS rational people we are able to make choices about how we live.   This is our freedom of will.   How will we choose to act... out of goodness, or out of evilness?   God isn't making the choice for us... we make that choice.

Augustine was able to explain his thinking without using the bible, which puts him in the ranks of a philosopher as well as that of a Christian theologian.  

Another way of explaining his thinking is for us to picture how beauty can be added to by the presence of darkness...how discordant harmony can make a musical piece more beautiful, or how dark patches can bring out the beauty in a picture.

Can Augustine's thinking that evilness is a lack of something be dismissed?   Yes.    But the fact remains that evilness is not given to us by God.  He didn't create it.  Evilness is the result of choices made.  First by the devil, then by the devil proving convincing to Adam and Eve.   Through that choice, evil entered the world.

Sources:
Philosophy book
Wiki
New advent.
Encyclopedia Britannica.
Anglican.
IEP.
European Graduate School.

  I have to admit, I had not heard of this fellow before today.   Zeno of Citium was a philosopher from  Cyrpus (the town of Citium) who was a stoic.   He was a follower of Diogenes.  Like Diogenes he had little patience with metaphysical speculation.

Teaching on the "Sto" of a building, Zeno became the founder of Stoicism.   Formerly a merchant, he found his true calling in Philosophy.

He studied under a variety of philosophers, picking gems of thought up from each one.   Deciding the saying "NO" was defining yourself, and saying "yes" was allowing someone else to define you.   Therefore we must be slow to say yes.

His approach to Logic was this:
"Zeno said that there were four stages in the process leading to true knowledge, which he illustrated with the example of the flat, extended hand, and the gradual closing of the fist:

Zeno stretched out his fingers, and showed the palm of his hand, – "Perception," – he said, – "is a thing like this."- Then, when he had closed his fingers a little, – "Assent is like this." – Afterwards, when he had completely closed his hand, and showed his fist, that, he said, was Comprehension. From which simile he also gave that state a new name, calling it katalepsis (κατάληψις). But when he brought his left hand against his right, and with it took a firm and tight hold of his fist: – "Knowledge" – he said, was of that character; and that was what none but a wise person possessed."

The nature of the universe was that God was like a divine fire foreseeing all and working through all through eternity.  And as fire has different forms and life, the universe will regularly go through change as well.

He taught that people should control their passions and by doing so they will achieve wisdom and knowledge.    By use of meditation one can develop and indifference to pain and pleasure and thus apply oneself to gaining wisdom.  Wise people should have children.   He believed that "If one is self-aware, one is also aware of others and, further, recognizes that it is in simplicity that true contentment may be found".

Sources:
The philosophy book
Wikipedia
Philosophy basics
Crystal Links.
Ancient History.

I have to tell you, I have never heard of this philosopher before.   Plato called him "Socrates gone mad".  He meant this as an insult to him.  To some those, it seems well-suited to Diogenes of Sinope.

I thought this funny "He was a citizen of Sinope who either fled or was exiled because of a problem involving the defacing of currency".  (IEP)   It is factual that he damaged the money, it just seems funny to be kicked out because of it.  He then lived in Athens.   About the rest of his life, we have a bunch of sketchy details.

Diogenes took Socrates passion for virtue and rejection of material things to an extreme.  He believed that to live a good life one must live a simple life, governed by reason and natural impulses.   One lives a good life by renouncing property and comfort, and not living by societal conventions.

He is known as a cynic, one of the first of his kind, that believes one should turn away from social custom and etiquette, living as natural a life as possible.   The more you do this, the more you live the ideal life.   His life was one of contention, fighting societal norms, telling people TO THINK before they do something, not just do what was expected of them.   For instance, if you are hungry EAT, even if you aren't at home.

Diogenes lived under an abandoned tub.    Though some stories have in being captured by pirates and living in Corinth being in charge of his master's children.

He believed that by doing so he had the most.   The most of what was truly important in life indeed.

I have to admit, when I looked up some famous quotes, many made good sense to me.  Take for instance this one below.   Makes sense does it not that we should listen more than we talk?

I can understand what he means in some ways.  
Take for instance how happy people can be with less stuff cluttering up their lives.  Less stuff to worry about, more time to just spend with family and friends rather than keeping up with the Jones'.    Less instead of more is an expression often heard these days.

AND Christ himself tells us that we must give up all things in order to follow him, counting all things as loss as we strive for the cross.  

BUT Diogenes may have carried things a little too far ... he also didn't do this for the sake of Christ, he did this because he thought it was the way to peace within.   Not calling on Christ for the peace but depriving himself in order to feel better inside his own head about how he was living his life.

His willingness to do so makes me think though.  It really does.   Would I be prepared if asked of God, to give up all the material comforts that I have?   My household, my family, my bunnies, and what not?   And gasp.. my books!!!!  That's a hard one to consider.    Yet this is what Diogenes did. WITHOUT the love of God to sustain him.  Enduring ridicule and what not as well.

Interesting fellow.   My sources are linked below.

Sources:
Philosophy book
internet encyclopedia of philosophy
wiki

Epicurus, born on Samos, forced to  live in Turkey due to political upheaval as a child, studied under Nausiphanus, believed that if you overcame fear of death a person could indeed be happy.

A central part of Epicurus' philosophy was this "Peace of mind, or tranquility, is the goal of life".    He believed that pain and pleasure are the roots of good and evil.  He states
"it is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely, honorably, and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely, honorably and justly without living pleasantly".   It is not about sensual pleasure, but rather about gaining the greatest pleasure through friends, knowledge and a temperate life, free from pain and fear.

According to Epicurus, the greatest fear we have is that of death.   This is a huge obstacle in living a tranquil life.    To remove this fear, Epicurus explained the nature of death.   Explaining that the very moment we die, we aren't actually aware of that moment.   So death itself is not painful and ergo not something that should be feared.   Since it is the end of consciousness it cannot be emotionally painful.

He was pretty much ignored by all but his devoted followers as he was dismissive of the religions of his day.  

This video below will give you more details about Epicurus.

As I think about Epicurus and his thoughts about getting rid of fear and pain, I think about how I am challenged as a Christian to DAILY follow Christ.   To trust him in all things.   Is that not truly the best way to get rid of fear?   Is that better than running after fleeting pleasures?   Better than depending on the daily attendance of friends?  

In the bible we read
Oh death where is your victory? O death where is your sting?  This verse from 1 Corinthians 15 talks about how death is NOT a fear for the believer.   If we die we are merely sleeping until Christ returns and our bodies are changed in the twinkling of an eye.   So we don't need to be afraid of death.     

Like Plato, Aristotle had a wide range of interest covering most of the sciences and many of the arts.   He particularly liked studying nature... helping to develop the study of zoology.   He developed the system of formal logic.

Aristotle firmly believed that we can understand the world around us by studying it.  For instance we can see different evidence of "dogs" around us.   We understand that different dogs still have common characteristics.   We can use our senses and our logic to understand just what a dog is... that truth is gathered from the world around us.   So unlike Plato, Aristotle believed that we can trust our senses.

Just as we can understand the physical world by studying, we can also understand the emotional or philosophical world by studying it.   So to understand virtue and justice, we need to study it.   Through this method, Aristotle was able classify logic, metaphysics, poetics, ethics etc as separate classifications.

This ability to classify items led him to start the classification of animals, breaking them up in to different categories. 

From his system of classification he developed a syllogism.   This is where you have two truths which lead to a third truth.   So you'd have premise, premise, plus conclusion.   This ability to reason is what separates us from all other animals.

Not all that Aristotle believed and put together in his writing was accurate, but so much of what he did think and learn still holds true or relevant.

Sources
Philosophy book
Britannica.

I have to admit, thinking about writing about Plato is like AH!!!!!   I can't fit him into one blog ... especially one of moderate length!!!!   But try I shall.

Plato was a man who had his hand into a whole of pies in life.   Interested in a whole lot of things.

Plato’s enthusiasm for mathematics, astronomy, and musical theory appears everywhere in his writings, and he also displays a far from superficial knowledge of the medicine and physiology of his day.   (source)

But today we don't speak of all his interests, only of that of his interest in philosophy.   Plate thought that the real world was full of ideas...these Ideas contained the ideal forms of everything.      When we are born we have these Ideal Forms within ourselves.    But the world we live in is a world of senses.  These senses have within them imperect copies of the Ideal Forms.     Nothing in this world is perfect, all we can do is recognize the imperfect copies that we see.   Everything therefore is basically shadows.

Now I have to admit that I read that and I think of scripture where we know that what we have now is a dim shadow of what is to come.   Isn't it amazing the Plato as a philosopher grasped this thought.   This thought that we aren't perfect.  We can't be.  We all have the knowledge of God within us, but we aren't God, we aren't perfect, all we can do is strive after that...and then in the life to come... God will grant us new bodies and we shall live perfectly with him.  In the meantime we are living in a world not our own, that nothing is perfect in because of the influence of sin in our lives.

Living in a world where we can't count on our senses means we have to count on our logic or reasoning.   

Plato was careful how he documented his thoughts, writing in such a way that he left no definitive conclusion.  He wanted to force people to think through the ideas on their own.   Having a dialogue was crucial to learning and he developed the logical argument.

Plato, unlike Socrates was literate and wrote books : The Republic, the Symposium, the Phaedo,  the Theaetetus; the Parmenides,and The Laws.

There is much much more to Plato, but this at least gives you some ideas about how his philosophical approach worked.  :)

For More about Plato, check out these resources:
Plato Facts.
SparkNotes.
Plato Works.

Some quotes
As to gods, I have no way of knowing either that they exist or do not exist, or what they are like.

Man is the measure of all things.

There are two sides to every question.

Protagoras was a greek sophist, who took an idea like this
It is a spring day in Athens.
A visitor from Sweden days the weather is warm, while a visitor from Egypt says the weather is cold.   BOTH people are speaking the truth.
Truth is dependent upon perspective and is therefore relative.
ERGO... man is the measure of all things.

Protagoras, who became an influential Sophist, lectured in law and rhetoric to anyone that would pay him, he mostly talked about practical matters that would help win a civil case rather than trying to prove a point but as he taught he began to see philosophical applications to what he was saying.  

to him, since he helped to fight civil cases, every thought, every argument had two sides to it.     His point was not to prove a point worthwhile, but to merely make the argument for it better.  it is man opinion that makes a point valuable or not.

He took a legal method and applied it to philosophy.   This was a new thing to do.   It placed man as the center of philosophical thinking rather than God.   God was taken out of the realm of philosophy.    To Protagoras, wondering about the cosmos or the beginning of things was a pointless endeavor as we simply could never know the answers.   He was very focused on the practical.

To Protagoras, "something is ethical or right, only because a person or society judges it to be so".

Wow....
Protagoras would fit into modern society really well don't you think?   With today's emphasis on "well if he thinks it's okay, then it's okay" thinking that is going on.   i find it sad.   Life would always be in flux wouldn't it?   With popular opinion being the guide to right and wrong and not even considering God at all.  

Sources:
The Philosophy Book
Quotes of Protagoras
internet encyclopedia of philosophy