Love of History What was more important, the Classical or the Hellenistic era? Constantina Katsari, a professional economic historian and numismatist, writes about her passions: What was more important, the Classical or the Hellenistic era?
References and Further Reading 1. Pyrrhonian Skepticism The distinction between Academic and Pyrrhonian skepticism continues to be a controversial topic.
In the Second Century C. The biggest obstacle to correctly making this distinction is that it is misleading to describe Academic and Pyrrhonian skepticism as distinctly unified views in the first place since different Academics and Pyrrhonists seem to have understood their skepticisms in different ways.
So even though the terms Academic and Pyrrhonian are appropriate insofar as there are clear lines of transmission and development of skeptical views that unify each, we should not expect to find a simple account of the distinction between the two.
Arcesilaus Following Plato's death in B. Next in line were Xenocrates, Polemo and Crates. The efforts of the Academics during this period were largely directed towards developing an orthodox Platonic metaphysics.
When Crates died c. Arcesilaus of Pitane c. Another member of the Academy, Socratides, who was apparently in line for the position, stepped down in favor of Arcesilaus Diogenes Laertius [DL] 4. See Long  for discussion of the life of Arcesilaus.
Platonic Innovator According to Diogenes Laertius, Classical vs hellenistic was "the first to argue on both sides of a question, and the first to meddle with the traditional Platonic system [or: Diogenes is certainly wrong about Arcesilaus being the first to argue on both sides of a question.
This was a long standing practice in Greek rhetoric commonly attributed to the Sophists. This transition was probably supported Classical vs hellenistic an innovative reading of Plato's books, which he possessed and held in high regard DL 4.
Diogenes' remark that Arcesilaus "meddled" with Plato's system and made it more of a debating contest indicates a critical attitude towards his innovations.
Diogenes or his source apparently thought that Arcesilaus betrayed the spirit of Platonic philosophy by turning it to skepticism.
Cicero, on the other hand, in an approving tone, reports that Arcesilaus revived the practice of Socrates, which he takes to be the same as Plato's.
This practice was not kept up by his successors; but Arcesilaus revived it and prescribed that those who wanted to listen to him should not ask him questions but state their own opinions.
When they had done so, he argued against them. But his listeners, so far as they could, would defend their own opinion" de Finibus 2. Arcesilaus had selectively derived the lesson from Plato's dialogues that nothing can be known with certainty, either by the senses or by the mind de Oratore 3.
He even refused to accept this conclusion; thus he did not claim to know that nothing could be known Academica Attack on the Stoics In general, the Stoics were the ideal target for the skeptics; for, their confidence in the areas of metaphysics, ethics and epistemology was supported by an elaborate and sophisticated set of arguments.
And, the stronger the justification of some theory, the more impressive is its skeptical refutation. They were also an attractive target due to their prominence in the Hellenistic world. Arcesilaus especially targeted the founder of Stoicism, Zeno, for refutation. Zeno confidently claimed not only that knowledge is possible but that he had a correct account of what knowledge is, and he was willing to teach this to others.
If one assents to the proposition associated with a kataleptic impression, i. The Stoic sage, as the perfection and fulfillment of human nature, is the one who assents only to kataleptic impressions and thus is infallible. Arcesilaus argued against the possibility of there being any sense-impressions which we could not be mistaken about.
In doing so, he paved the way for future Academic attacks on Stoicism. To summarize the attack: The first possibility i is illustrated by cases of indistinguishable twins, eggs, statues or imprints in wax made by the same ring Lucullus The second possibility ii is illustrated by the illusions of dreams and madness Lucullus On the strength of these examples, Arcesilaus apparently concluded that we may, in principle, be deceived about any sense-impression, and consequently that the Stoic account of empirical knowledge fails.
For the Stoics were thorough-going empiricists and believed that sense-impressions lie at the foundation of all of our knowledge. So if we could not be certain of ever having grasped any sense-impression, then we cannot be certain of any of the more complex impressions of the world, including what strikes us as valuable.
On Suspending Judgment In response to this lack of knowledge whether limited to the Stoic variety or knowledge in generalArcesilaus claimed that we should suspend judgment. By arguing for and against every position that came up in discussion he presented equally weighty reasons on both sides of the issue and made it easier to accept neither side Academica Diogenes counts the suspension of judgment as another of Arcesilaus' innovations DL 4.The period given over to "classical" Greek sculpture includes three distinct styles spanning hundreds of years, starting in approximately B.C.
These styles, starting with the earliest, are the archaic, the classical and the Hellenistic. It's easy to see the progression of Greek art by observing. Outline of History; Prehistory — Prehistory, the rise of civilization, and the ancient Middle East to c B.C.E. Prehistory to c BCE — Unit 1: Prehistory and the rise of Civilization to c B.C.E..
FC1 — Biological, Cultural, and Technological Evolution in History; FC2 — A Possible Scenario of Human Evolution; FC3 — A Possible Scenario for the Evolution of the Family and. Hellenistic vs Classical Art.
When talking about Hellenistic and classical art, both arts are known for displaying human anatomy. In Hellenistic art, one can see that the art forms went beyond understanding human anatomy and looked at how the body moved and how it looked when in action.
[AAA] Atlas of Ancient Archaeology, Jacquetta Hawkes (ed), Barnes and Nobles: [AAF] Answering a Fundamentalist, Albert J.
Nevins, M.M., Our Sunday Visitor. Jun 26, · Hellenistic studies focus on the study of the Ancient Greeks between BCE and BCE. The difference between the Hellenic period and Classical Greece lies in the date of BCE: When Alexander the Great yunusemremert.coms: 8.
The earliest reliably documented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 6th century BC when it appeared in ancient Greek philosophy but remained a matter of speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the Earth as a physical given.
The paradigm was gradually adopted throughout the Old World during Late Antiquity and.