Philo of Larissa | |
|---|---|
| Φίλων ὁ Λαρισαῖος | |
| Born | c. 159 BC |
| Died | c. 84 BC |
| Philosophical work | |
| School | Academic skepticism |
| Institutions | Academy (scholarch) |
Philo ofLarissa (Greek:Φίλων ὁ ΛαρισαῖοςPhilon ho Larisaios; 159/8–84/3 BC[1]) was a Greekphilosopher. It is very probable that his actual name was "Philio."[2]
He was a pupil ofClitomachus, whom he succeeded as head of theAcademy. During theMithridatic Wars which would see the destruction of the Academy, he travelled toRome whereCicero heard him lecture. None of his writings survive. He was anAcademic sceptic, like Clitomachus andCarneades before him, but he offered a more moderate view ofskepticism than that of his teachers, permitting provisional beliefs without certainty.
Philo was born inLarissa in 154/3 BC. He moved toAthens where he became a pupil ofClitomachus, whom he succeeded as head of the Third or NewAcademy in 110–109 BC. According toSextus Empiricus, he was the founder of a "Fourth Academy",[3] but other writers refuse to admit the separate existence of more than three academies. He was the teacher ofAntiochus of Ascalon who would become his adversary in the Platonist school.
During theMithridatic wars Philo leftAthens and took up his residence inRome in 88 BC. In Rome he lectured on rhetoric and philosophy, and collected around him many eminent pupils, amongst whomCicero was the most famous and the most enthusiastic.[4]
Philo was the last undisputedscholarch of the Academy in direct succession from Plato. After his death in 84/3 BC, the Academy seceded into rivalling factions and eventually disappeared until theNeoplatonist revival.
None of Philo's works are extant; our knowledge of his views is derived fromNumenius,Sextus Empiricus andCicero. In general, his philosophy was a reaction against theAcademic skepticism of the Middle and New Academy in favor of the dogmatism ofPlato.
He maintained that by means of conceptive notions (katalêptikê phantasia) objects could not be comprehended (akatalêpta), but were comprehensible according to their nature.[5] How he understood the latter, whether he referred to the evidence and accordance of the sensations which we receive from things,[6] or whether he had returned to the Platonic assumption of an immediate spiritual perception, is not clear. In opposition to his discipleAntiochus, he would not admit a separation of an Old and a New Academy, but would rather find the doubts of scepticism even in Socrates and Plato,[7] and not less perhaps in the New Academy the recognition of truth which burst through its scepticism. At least on the one hand, even though he would not resist the evidence of the sensations, he wished even here to meet with antagonists who would endeavour to refute his positions[6] i.e. he felt the need of subjecting afresh what he had provisionally set down in his own mind as true to the examination of scepticism; and on the other hand, he did not doubt of arriving at a sure conviction respecting the ultimate end of life.
Attribution:
This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Brandis, Christian A. (1870)."Philon (3. the Academic)". InSmith, William (ed.).Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. Vol. 3. p. 313.| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| People | |
| Other | |
