“Mad, Bad, or Sad? Exploring mental illness and immorality in the ancient world and today

Margaret Cameron (University of Melbourne)

Why do ancient ideas, doctrines, and ways of living one’s life re-emerge at different times in history? What can explain the ongoing, if intermittent, relevance of ancient Greek and Roman ways of thought? This talk is going to be primarily a talk about Stoicism and neo-Stoic movements, although along the way there will be reason to compare these traditions with Aristotelianism and neo-Aristotelianisms. What interests me is to enquire into the reasons why Stoicism as a way of living one’s life is revived in different periods of history, including today. How to live one’s life was the primary question for ethics, and thus ancient ethical writing – especially amongst the Romans who provided guidebooks for achieving a successful, human, flourishing life. Neo-Stoic movements have emerged within particular contexts of human history motivated by a desire to achieve the aims of that philosophical school, which is to attain happiness by leading a life driven by reason and by extirpating, or freeing oneself from, our passions and emotions. In contrast, however, Aristotle’s ethical writings were never, as far as I know, used as guidebooks for providing direction for individuals who were seeking psychological help to improve their lives. There certainly have been neo-Aristotelian movements throughout history, including today, but these efforts to turn to Aristotle’s philosophy over again were motivated for very different reasons. What, if anything accounts for this difference between Stoic and Aristotelian ethics and their popularity in different eras and contexts?