• Login
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    A Philosophical commentary on Cicero, academica priora II 1-62. 
    •   QMRO Home
    • Queen Mary University of London Theses
    • Theses
    • A Philosophical commentary on Cicero, academica priora II 1-62.
    •   QMRO Home
    • Queen Mary University of London Theses
    • Theses
    • A Philosophical commentary on Cicero, academica priora II 1-62.
    ‌
    ‌

    Browse

    All of QMROCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    ‌
    ‌

    Administrators only

    Login
    ‌
    ‌

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    A Philosophical commentary on Cicero, academica priora II 1-62.

    View/Open
    ALLEEMUDDERAPhilosophical1979.pdf (24.44Mb)
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    In confining this Commentary to the first 62 sections of the Lucullus my intention has been to make a special study of Antiochus' case against the Academic sceptics. Although this is the only full-length counter-argument against Academic scepticism which we possess (despite the many works written by both aides in a controversy spanning more than two centuries), due attention has not been paid to it. Scholars have tended to use Cicero's work as a source-book for Antiochus' general philosophical views or to confine their attention to the sceptic case. Even if consideration has been given to the dogmatic case as well (as by Stough, Greek Skepticism), there has been a certain bias in favour of the Academic sceptics. This is possibly due to the fact that the scepticism of the Academy has in itself a strong appeal and that it has the final word in Cicero's work. But I do not think that Lucullus' arguments, whatever their shortcomings, are weaker by comparison. The Lucullus is, not only an extremely important philosophical text, it is also one of the most difficult. Reid's Commentary is very valuable but his interest was more literary and general than strictly philosophical. My own Commentary is concerned solely with the philosophical content of the dialogue and takes account of relevant work on Hellenistic philosophy since Reid's edition appeared at the end of the last century, I have tried to place the arguments and philosophical issues in their ancient context, either, by means of plausible inferences where direct evidence is lacking or by reference to classical texts. I am aware that the problem of knowledge is still an issue today and I have made use of some modern works on the subject, in elucidating particular arguments, but, in general, I have limited references to modern philosophy to a minimum in order not to impede understanding of Cicero's text and not to widen excessively the scope of the Commentary. The text used is that of Plasborg (Teubner, Leipzig, 1922).
    Authors
    Alleemudder, Asraff
    URI
    http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/1361
    Collections
    • Theses [3822]
    Copyright statements
    The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author
    Twitter iconFollow QMUL on Twitter
    Twitter iconFollow QM Research
    Online on twitter
    Facebook iconLike us on Facebook
    • Site Map
    • Privacy and cookies
    • Disclaimer
    • Accessibility
    • Contacts
    • Intranet
    • Current students

    Modern Slavery Statement

    Queen Mary University of London
    Mile End Road
    London E1 4NS
    Tel: +44 (0)20 7882 5555

    © Queen Mary University of London.