Název: Ingenia sanare : die Therapie der Undankbarkeit in Senecas De beneficiis
Variantní název:
- Ingenia sanare : Seneca's therapy of ingratitude in De beneficiis
Zdrojový dokument: Graeco-Latina Brunensia. 2017, roč. 22, č. 2, s. 217-227
Rozsah
217-227
-
ISSN1803-7402 (print)2336-4424 (online)
Trvalý odkaz (DOI): https://doi.org/10.5817/GLB2017-2-12
Trvalý odkaz (handle): https://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/137632
Type: Článek
Jazyk
Licence: Neurčená licence
Upozornění: Tyto citace jsou generovány automaticky. Nemusí být zcela správně podle citačních pravidel.
Abstrakt(y)
For Seneca (and the Stoics in general) benefactions are the essential element for social bonding: they are meant to be reciprocal and thus create relationships. But as he points out in the beginning of De beneficiis they often remain unanswered (and thus fail to create or stabilize community life) because of the recipients' ingratitude. What Seneca undertakes in De beneficiis is to teach people how to avoid ingratitude. As he points out in the beginning of the treatise, a real philosopher's duty is to heal people's souls, so his approach is a therapeutic one. In my paper I present Seneca's therapy of ingratitude. I argue that it is rooted in Stoic Ethics and at the same time adapted to his non-sage readers.
Reference
[1] Préchac, F. (Ed.). (1926–1927). Sénèque: Des bienfaits. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
[2] Reynolds, L. D. (Ed.). (1965). L. Annaei Senecae ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales (Tomus 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[3] Winterbottom, M. (Ed.). (1994). M. Tulli Ciceronis De officiis. Oxford: University Press.
[4] Abel, K. (1995). Die Sinnfrage des Lebens. Philosophisches Denken im Vor- und Umfeld des frühen Christentums. Stuttgart: Steiner.
[5] Asanger, R., & Wenninger, G. (Eds.). (1994). Handwörterbuch Psychologie. Weinheim: Beltz.
[6] Bees, R. (2004). Die Oikeiosislehre der Stoa, I: Rekonstruktion ihres Inhalts. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.
[7] Chaumartin, F.-R. (1985). Le De Beneficiis de Sénèque: sa signification philosophique, politique et sociale. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
[8] Därmann, I. (2010). Theorien der Gabe zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius.
[9] Delatte, L., & Evrard, É. et al. (Eds.). (1981). Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Opera Philosophica, Index Verborum. Hildesheim – New York: Olms.
[10] Fuhrer, Th. (2010). Wollen oder Nicht(-)Wollen: Zum Willenskonzept bei Seneca. In J. Müller, & R. Hofmeister Pich (Eds.), Wille und Handlung in der Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und Spätantike (pp. 69–94). Berlin – New York: De Gruyter.
[11] Griffin, M. T. (2013). Seneca on Society. A Guide to De beneficiis. Oxford: University Press.
[12] Hadot, P. (1991). Philosophie als Lebensform: Geistige Übungen in der Antike. Berlin: Gatza.
[13] Inwood, B. (2008). The Will in Seneca the Younger. In J. G. Fitch (Ed.), Seneca (pp. 114–135). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[14] Jehne, M. (2015). From patronus to pater. The Changing Role of Patronage in the Period of Transition from Pompey to Augustus. In M. Jehne, & F. Pina Polo (Eds.), Foreign clientelae in the Roman Empire (pp. 297–319). Stuttgart: Steiner.
[15] Junghanß, A. (2017, i. E.). Zur Bedeutung von Wohltaten für das Gedeihen von Gemeinschaft. Cicero, Seneca und Laktanz über beneficia. Stuttgart: Steiner.
[16] Klein, J. (2016). The Stoic Argument from Oikeiosis. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 50, 143–200. | DOI 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198778226.003.0005
[17] Long, A. A. (2003). Roman philosophy. In D. Sedley (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Philosophy (pp. 184–210). Cambridge: University Press.
[18] Mauss, M. (1990). Die Gabe: Form und Funktion des Austauschs in archaischen Gesellschaften. Frankfurt – Main: Suhrkamp.
[19] Picone, G. (Ed.). (2013). Le regole del beneficio. Commento tematico a Seneca, De beneficiis, libro 1. Palermo: Palumbo.
[20] Raccanelli, R. (2009). Cambiare il dono: per una pragmatica delle relazioni nel de beneficiis senecano. In G. Picone, L. Beltrami, & L. Riccottilli, Benefattori e beneficati. La relazione asimmetrica nel de beneficiis di Seneca (pp. 303–356). Palermo: Palumbo.
[21] Schofield, M. (2003). Stoic Ethics. In B. Inwood (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics (pp. 233–256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[22] Setaioli, A. (2014a). Ethics I: Philosophy as Therapy, Self-Transformation, and "Lebensform". In G. Damschen, & A. Heil (Eds.), Brill’s Companion to Seneca. Philosopher and Dramatist (pp. 239–256). Leiden – Boston: Brill.
[23] Setaioli, A. (2014b). Ethics III: Free Will and Autonomy. In G. Damschen, & A. Heil (Eds.), Brill’s Companion to Seneca. Philosopher and Dramatist (pp. 277–299). Leiden – Boston: Brill.
[24] VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2007). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington: American Psychological Association.
[25] Vogt, K. M. (2008a). Law, Reason, and the Cosmic City. Political Philosophy in the Early Stoa. Oxford: University Press.
[26] Vogt, K. M (2008b). The Good is Benefit: On the Stoic Definition of the Good. In J. J. Cleary, & G. M. Gurtler (Eds.), Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy (Vol. 23; pp. 155–186). Boston: Brill. | DOI 10.1163/22134417-90000094
[27] Wolkenhauer, J. (2014). Senecas Schrift De beneficiis und der Wandel im römischen Benefizienwesen. Göttingen: V&R Unipress.
[2] Reynolds, L. D. (Ed.). (1965). L. Annaei Senecae ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales (Tomus 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[3] Winterbottom, M. (Ed.). (1994). M. Tulli Ciceronis De officiis. Oxford: University Press.
[4] Abel, K. (1995). Die Sinnfrage des Lebens. Philosophisches Denken im Vor- und Umfeld des frühen Christentums. Stuttgart: Steiner.
[5] Asanger, R., & Wenninger, G. (Eds.). (1994). Handwörterbuch Psychologie. Weinheim: Beltz.
[6] Bees, R. (2004). Die Oikeiosislehre der Stoa, I: Rekonstruktion ihres Inhalts. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.
[7] Chaumartin, F.-R. (1985). Le De Beneficiis de Sénèque: sa signification philosophique, politique et sociale. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
[8] Därmann, I. (2010). Theorien der Gabe zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius.
[9] Delatte, L., & Evrard, É. et al. (Eds.). (1981). Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Opera Philosophica, Index Verborum. Hildesheim – New York: Olms.
[10] Fuhrer, Th. (2010). Wollen oder Nicht(-)Wollen: Zum Willenskonzept bei Seneca. In J. Müller, & R. Hofmeister Pich (Eds.), Wille und Handlung in der Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und Spätantike (pp. 69–94). Berlin – New York: De Gruyter.
[11] Griffin, M. T. (2013). Seneca on Society. A Guide to De beneficiis. Oxford: University Press.
[12] Hadot, P. (1991). Philosophie als Lebensform: Geistige Übungen in der Antike. Berlin: Gatza.
[13] Inwood, B. (2008). The Will in Seneca the Younger. In J. G. Fitch (Ed.), Seneca (pp. 114–135). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[14] Jehne, M. (2015). From patronus to pater. The Changing Role of Patronage in the Period of Transition from Pompey to Augustus. In M. Jehne, & F. Pina Polo (Eds.), Foreign clientelae in the Roman Empire (pp. 297–319). Stuttgart: Steiner.
[15] Junghanß, A. (2017, i. E.). Zur Bedeutung von Wohltaten für das Gedeihen von Gemeinschaft. Cicero, Seneca und Laktanz über beneficia. Stuttgart: Steiner.
[16] Klein, J. (2016). The Stoic Argument from Oikeiosis. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 50, 143–200. | DOI 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198778226.003.0005
[17] Long, A. A. (2003). Roman philosophy. In D. Sedley (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Philosophy (pp. 184–210). Cambridge: University Press.
[18] Mauss, M. (1990). Die Gabe: Form und Funktion des Austauschs in archaischen Gesellschaften. Frankfurt – Main: Suhrkamp.
[19] Picone, G. (Ed.). (2013). Le regole del beneficio. Commento tematico a Seneca, De beneficiis, libro 1. Palermo: Palumbo.
[20] Raccanelli, R. (2009). Cambiare il dono: per una pragmatica delle relazioni nel de beneficiis senecano. In G. Picone, L. Beltrami, & L. Riccottilli, Benefattori e beneficati. La relazione asimmetrica nel de beneficiis di Seneca (pp. 303–356). Palermo: Palumbo.
[21] Schofield, M. (2003). Stoic Ethics. In B. Inwood (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics (pp. 233–256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[22] Setaioli, A. (2014a). Ethics I: Philosophy as Therapy, Self-Transformation, and "Lebensform". In G. Damschen, & A. Heil (Eds.), Brill’s Companion to Seneca. Philosopher and Dramatist (pp. 239–256). Leiden – Boston: Brill.
[23] Setaioli, A. (2014b). Ethics III: Free Will and Autonomy. In G. Damschen, & A. Heil (Eds.), Brill’s Companion to Seneca. Philosopher and Dramatist (pp. 277–299). Leiden – Boston: Brill.
[24] VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2007). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington: American Psychological Association.
[25] Vogt, K. M. (2008a). Law, Reason, and the Cosmic City. Political Philosophy in the Early Stoa. Oxford: University Press.
[26] Vogt, K. M (2008b). The Good is Benefit: On the Stoic Definition of the Good. In J. J. Cleary, & G. M. Gurtler (Eds.), Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy (Vol. 23; pp. 155–186). Boston: Brill. | DOI 10.1163/22134417-90000094
[27] Wolkenhauer, J. (2014). Senecas Schrift De beneficiis und der Wandel im römischen Benefizienwesen. Göttingen: V&R Unipress.