Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts

Monday, December 17, 2012

How Do We Win Our Country, Civilization, Society, and Lives?


I can't tell you how to win any of these, but I can tell you it is up to no individual man or woman, but up to each of us to do our own thing after understanding the problem fully.

First off, you must ask yourself a very simple question: “What are we trying to do with this grand experiment called civilization and society?” Are we succeeding? If not, what is wrong? What are the fundamentals of a civilization, society, and culture? What is “progress” and does it emit “regress” under all circumstances; is there never a point which is too far or wrong? Who gives me my ideas on these matters, and do I truly agree or have I never really thought about them independently? What are my feelings about independence and individuality (to the core and at all levels) and where do I ultimately stand? Do I think too shallow and only attack areas and points or am I truly going to the root of the problem? Am I thinking these things or am I using someone else's ideas, words, or thoughts in such a way that I have not actually felt I thought for myself?

I cannot answer your questions, but I can answer my own and tell you what I think and what I intend to do. I intend to pulverize the jerks that have enslaved us by first learning about, understanding, and hearing the people (the ones who truly wish freedom), then formulating an intellectual argument in “common” lay terms (through my gifts and also studying of various things which includes philosophy), and spreading it far and wide. I intend to be no leader, but only a messenger of an idea, which cannot be killed. I am not sure exactly how I intend to do this, but I do know I shall do it in a method not yet used (nonviolent, as always), so that there is no current method against it and it therefore has the maximum impact.

I guess the biggest advantage I have in my intentions is that even I do not know what I will do next, and I cannot therefore be predicted by the machine, but I can probably predict I will use the machine's NECESSARY weaknesses against it so that it has the most difficulty adapting and suppressing what we ALL truly want – individual liberty.

I may one day ask for your help, but I will not ask now, as I am not ready. I may one day die or be killed, but then all you need do is be yourself and continue in the work for individual liberty. I believe in the human spirit!

All you need know is the following:

  1. Be yourself (break free and find out if you are really you or the product of something else)
  2. Know yourself (are you a product of culture and tradition or really free and independent?)
  3. Know what you want (do you love society/civilization/culture or not?)
  4. Know your environment (all parts of it, especially locally, humans and human minds included)
  5. Know your society (how does it work and what are its foundational pillars, etc.?)
  6. Know how to survive (can you live independent of society and in a natural state?)
  7. Know your logic (what drives the minds of culture/society/civilization? What is in their minds?)
  8. Know what is right and what is wrong (find a solid ground you can stand on and live by)
  9. Know your direction (what is your plan? What makes you happy?)

From there you should develop the rest. I believe in the human spirit, so I really do not think much more need be said, other than, you need not agree with everyone on every point, only the ROOT – the rest will sort itself out from there.

What do you believe of the human spirit now and after you have learned all you need too?

I am not out of this hideous matrix yet, this I will freely admit, but in the meantime I would recommend those who wish to escape should most definitely commit to reading Jacques Ellul's 450 page book, The Technological Society, for it is a very very good start. You will not need all I think you should know, but you will gain quite a bit of the knowledge I think you seek from it, and also from Will Durant's The Story of Civilization, particularly all that can be inferred from volume 1.


It will all depend on your “base” as to how you take these texts, but they are, in my opinion, good starts all around, which is why I must emphatically state that we need not all agree on all things, just the root.

Begin educating yourself and asking the important questions like “What are we trying to do?” and the rest will follow. Freedom is merely a state of mind – you are literally the manager of your own future.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Am I an Anarcho-primitivist?




I believe in freedom through simplicity, by utlizing the resources which are available to us for free and which are meant to be free, by drive and determination for self-sufficiency, and by living in harmony with oneself, one's surroundings, and one's neighbors.

In a search for my true socio-political philosophy I have tried to identify with many positions and labels. I know it is somewhat useless and I don't like being labeled, let alone labeling myself, but I guess what I am trying to do is to find an idea which closely resembles the undefined and undeveloped idea I have inside of me so that I can take that idea and compare it to my own. I am not doing this because I am incapable of original thought but for three reasons: there is nothing new under the sun; there are and have been lots of people with lots of ideas and at least one of them is bound to be very similar to my own; and it is simpler to build a logical and coherent personal philosophy if you are kept honest by testing the ideas of others against the ideas of yourself. In this search I have found that at this moment in my life I most likely identify with what is known as Anarcho-primitivism.

Wikipedia defines Anarcho-primitivism as an anarchist critique of the origins and progress of civilization, and advocation for a return to non-civilized ways of life through deindustrialisation, abolition of the divisions of labor or specialization, and the abandonment of large-scale organizational technologies. In short, anarcho-primitivism seeks to eradicate all forms of domination and advocates a return to the simplest form of human society and its relationship to the environment. Anarcho-primitivists believe that civilized society, particularly technological society, is destroying both the environment and humanity.

Now, before I discovered this philosophy I found that I could most closely identify with libertarianism, however, I never could quite buy into unbridled capitalism even though I view socialism as much worse. Libertarianism has its roots in anarchism, so libertrianism to anarcho-primitivism is no large jump, but it is libertarianism's embrace of the underlying structure of what is “the system” which causes me to differ sharply from its basic tenets. Basically, my problem with libertarianism is the same problem I have with socialism and most all economic or political philosophies – they are based on the same underlying structure, which is “the system”. I just never understood how any of us can expect for “this” thing we live in to get any better if we keep on using the same old formula and only change the manner in which we apply its main components.

In my mind, the organism is the problem, not some part of it or fungal growth on it, so how is a different form of economics going to help any? How is privatizing schooling or leaving it public going to change the problem that is schooling, not in schooling? How is the privatizing of prisons or leaving them public going to promote individual liberty? How is a smaller or larger governing authority going to abolition despotism? How is the ownership of any property either by private individuals or by the public through the apparatus of government going to promote freedom of movement and one's natural right to the use of natural resources, not for economic gain or power, but for day-to-day survival? How can anyone expect to have individual liberty when they are forced to be part of an organism which can and will punish them for not only refusing to be part of it, but also for not being part of it in a manner consistent with what that organism deems fit to the purposes of its own survival?

I agree with anarcho-primitivism's critique of "the system". I have been questioning "What is this for? What are we trying to do with this grand experiment we call civilization? Is it delivering, has it ever delivered, and do I believe it can ever deliver whatever it is we, the people, think it did, does, or could accomplish? Who's idea was this, where did it start, and who started it? Did people opt in or were they forced in? Can people opt out or are they forced to participate through coercion? Was it all started by we, the people, or did it all begin with authoritarians, and if the latter, how can we, the people, ever expect an authoritarian system to deliver us from itself?" With these questions I am constantly critiquing modern society, its origins, purpose, and progress.

In the aspect of critique I most certainly agree with anarcho-primitivism, its value, and its necessity to the welfare of us all – without question. In the aspect of "rewilding" I am not so certain I agree with some of the more extreme elements who wish to eventually abolish written language, the division of time (think: clocks and calendars), and similar fundamental building blocks required for mere reason, not just civilization. To put it plainly, I don't think anarcho-primitivism can justifiably or even rationally conclude what it does if it attacks the very foundations of the reason it used to arrive at its conclusions. That does not mean it cannot disagree with civilization itself, for there is a difference between the system which allowed for advanced reason to develop and the fundamental priniciples of reason, but it does mean language, division, and similar basic elements of coherent thought and transmission of thought are off-limits. Taking the most extreme position, as some anarcho-primitivists do is, in my mind, always a dumb idea – extreme anything is hardly balanced and harmonious and often also irrational.

I see nothing wrong with oral language and I don't necessarily think written language is detrimental to the environment and humanity although I do agree printed or mechanically produced language (be it oral or written) has allowed for and always will allow for a loss of humanity, individuality, and is the root of many problems, particularly media exploitation – in the end I do not think all of the pros of printed or mechanically produced language justify all of the cons. I also see nothing wrong with counting, basic mathematic operations, calendars, and the measurement of cycles via the division of time. Unlike government institutions, impersonal monetary units, institutional schooling, and organized religions, I do not think the tools of language, division of time, and math are inherently only useful as mechanisms of control and domination.

So far, concerning what I know about anarcho-primitivism and my personal position on things, I applaud anarcho-primitivism's critique and I share in its critique. However, concerning its advocation of a return to non-civilized ways, I personally advocate a return to simplicity although I am not quite certain as to how far back humanity should go or how simple I believe things should be – I only know that "this" is not working. I cannot say I disagree with anarcho-primitivism's approach or some of its conclusions concerning "rewilding", but on the other hand, I cannot say at this time whether or not I agree with it enough to consider its principles desirable, necessary, or feasible.

Now, concerning environmentalism... I am not an extemist, nor do I absolutely believe in man-made climate change. Do I believe it could be a problem? Yes! Do I believe it is a problem? I'm not convinced it is currently a major catasrophe as some would have us believe. Do I believe pollution is a problem? Yes! Do I believe technology and civilization aid in pollution and are a major cause of it? Yes! Do I think humanity has a responsibility to its environment? Yes! Do I think we should be good stewards of the earth? Yes! Do I think humanity should try to have a sustainable relationship with nature and live in harmony with it? Yes! Do I think humanity should exclude itself and all of its natural drives, as part of nature, from the equation? No! Do I think "carbon taxes" and similar ideas are good and are an answer? You're out of your mind! I agree with many thngs, but I do have my limits, although I remain open-minded, but some things simply take more to convince me than others.

I recently acquired a book by one of anarcho-primitivism's main proponents, John Zerzan, entitled, Running on Emptiness: The Pathology of Civilization, and there are several other texts which I intend to read in order to get a better hold on my position, including: Against Civilization: Readings nad Reflections, also by John Zerzan, The Kingdom of Heaven is Within You by Leo Tolstoy, The Techonlogical Society and Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes both by Jacques Elul, The Gutenberg Galaxy by Marshall McLuhen, Men Against the State: The Expositors of Individualist Anarchism 1827-1908 by James J. Martin, Technological Slavery: The Collected Writings of Theodore J. Kaczynski, a.k.a. "The Unabomber" by Theodore John Kaczynski, and The One Man Revolution in America by Ammon Hennacy. I look forward to reading these texts and seeing where they lead me.


Now, as for where I currently stand... I believe in strongly critiquing civilization and I advocate minimalism and the simplifying of one's life as a means to both acquire individual liberty and to protest the inadequacies, wrong-doings, and falsehoods of "the system". I believe that the closer humanity can get to a harmonious connection with the whole of nature the closer humanity will get to a connection with its own nature and purpose. I believe that in order to reach this point one must not be "anti" anything, but rather must advocate a position based on something more concrete than merely being against something, such as technology or civilization. Basically, using the mindset of "simplified living" one should eliminate what is deemed unnecessary and do what is necessary to live in harmony with the whole of nature—which includes humanity and its nature—and seek to revere and sustain that relationship.

I believe this simplification and critique can be obtained by eliminating the purchasing of products which are both unnecessary and manufactured using specialization and division of labor, purchasing and using only secondhand or "used" products when necessary and possible, the studying of wilderness skills, learning plant identification, studying botanical medicine using local plants, learning to forage, acquiring gardening and farming skills, learning to fish, hunt, and trap, shopping at local farm markets, minimizing one's possessions, and otherwise trying to do as many things as possible which minimize one's dependence on "the system" while promoting all-around harmony – this is where I currently stand.

I would probably not be considered an anarcho-primitivist by most anarcho-primitivists at this time, although they might agree I have some leanings. In fact, at this time I would probably consider myself an environmentally conscious individualist anarchist who is also a minimalist and neopagan. However, if you are interested in anarcho-primitivism you may find the following links useful:






For further information..."web search" is your friend.

Peace,
Alraune

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Freedom: The Hunger Games and the Future


I had been dead set against watching The Hunger Games, as I wondered what the infatuation was with watching children kill one another, but my knowledge of the film's metaphorical meaning intrigued me anyway and so, with much reservation, I rented the film to see what the fuss was about.

For starters, as I had assumed before watching the film, Hollywood, in this day and age, could not resist the chance to show a murdered child dying on screen, and indeed, the viewer will watch at least one child die a very intimate death. However, after having seen the film I do not believe it would have been as effective in its presentation had the scene aforementioned not been included – it is pivotal to one's full emotional understanding of the allegory the movie presents concerning the direction of future society. In other words, I do not believe Hollywood simply included the scene for its “sales” or “shock” value!

The Hunger Games is an allegory concerning the current direction our society, and indeed the direction all of global society, is headed in. Its ending expresses clearly that if one understands the “art of man-herding”, as expressed in Plato's Republic and Statesman, and how society is controlled, then one (through the awakening of many who do likewise and act independently) can alter the course of the game.

You see, all society's are controlled from the top down through manipulation of the mob, or masses, by the “philosopher-kings” who are otherwise known as billionaires and wealthy anthropologists. They control the “play” and each of our “lines” by manipulating the action of the mob (causing us to concede to peer-pressure) and through the direct technical manipulation of both the environment and the regulations involved in “the game” of society. As soon as one is aware of this fact then, if they are intelligent and resourceful enough, they are fully capable of changing their “lines” or otherwise altering the scene and therefore the outcome of the “play”. Should many uprise and do likewise “the game” is then over and we are truly free and no longer controlled.

Life, which very much includes the “art of man-herding”, is a lot like a chess game wherein a “master” attempts to cause the various players to move in accordance with their will in order to achieve the desired outcome of victory. Like chess, the only way to alter the course of “the game” of life is to think outside of the box, refuse to follow the mob, and to create one's own rules by choosing options other than the obvious ones laid out by the opposition.

In other words, what The Hunger Games is trying to say is that if you want to be free (e.g. “live”), then you have to write your own lines and make your own rules – you must act and not react!

I believe each and every one of us on this planet wish to be free. I believe that even those who wish to control us want to be free, but their own fears drive them to control the rest of us as a means to that end. I believe “We, The People”, are capable of being free and that we can and will figure all of this out, individually – I believe. We do not have to follow any one philosophy or anyone's idea – we only need to follow our own belief in our principles.

We must stop voting party lines – they are controlled! Most of us are moderate and we do not want either the extreme right nor the extreme left, but we want something in the middle. Still, we need to understand that the controllers want something in the middle as well (Hegelian Dialectic) and it is that which they are directing us towards, so we must ask: “what are MY principles, and what are those things which have been placed into my head? What do I want? What do I believe in? What do THEY want, and why do THEY want it?”

If you agree with anyone 100% you need to ask yourself where you went wrong! On the other hand you must compromise to get along, but you need to ask yourself: “am I compromising because I think it is the most workable solution for all, or am I compromising because others told me that is the case? Is it what I think, or is it what I have been told to think? Am I truly compromising, am I capable of such, and if so, is it really my own feeling? Where do I stand and what am I willing to give in order to get; furthermore, am I really compromising or am I too in-love with my own idea of what should be to see the points presented by others? Is that stupid redneck or dirty hippy really all that dumb? What is this valuable human being trying to say, why are they trying to say it, and where can I reach a compromise with them? Do I really understand my neighbor and their point of view? Do I think I need to understand my neighbor's point of view in order to reach a reasonable compromise? Must it be my way or the highway, and if so, do I really think that or am I being convinced by someone other than myself that it must be that way? Do I really believe in freedom and the rights of the individual to rule their own life or do I want to control or force others in some way? Where do I really stand?”

If you are incapable of foreseeing a compromise then you have failed yourself in that you are incapable of envisioning a realistic solution, since nature is full of compromise whether you believe it was designed that way or merely an accident – it is the way of nature. How can you hope to succeed against nature and how can you call your ideology “true” if it goes against the only thing we all know to be true in the here and now – nature?

Just remember that compromise is not necessarily agreement, but it may just be the closest you can peacefully come to what YOU think is correct, and after all, isn't peace what we all seek?

Deny what I say – I do not care, but I highly recommend you watch The Hunger Games, if you have not, and see how it speaks to you.

Peace,

Alraune


Friday, November 25, 2011

The Ancient Roots of the Hippie Philosophy




It has been suggested that the hippie philosophy shares many beliefs with the ancient Greek Cynics. In fact, as early as July 7, 1967, a Time Magazine article asserted that the 1960s hippie counterculture espoused many of the same ideals as the ancient Greek school of Cynicism, and even made specific note of the philosopher Diogenes of Sinope – an interesting character to be sure. However, while it is true that no one school of philosophical thought could be considered to be the hippie philosophy, it is absolutely true that the idealogical force behind the lifestyles of most hippies is very much in line with the ancient Greek school of Cynicism.

The Cynics believed that the purpose of life was to live a life of virtue (ie. a sort of personal moral excellence and well-being) which was in agreement with Nature. This was accomplished through living a simple life and rejecting conventional (ie. "conformative") desires for things such as wealth, power, fame, and material possessions. They believed that we are all children of the world, that the world belongs to us all equally, that most suffering is created by the misguided values which society holds (eg. greed, etc.), that the nature and purpose of society needs to be questioned and corrected, and that true happiness can ultimately be gained through rigorous training of the mind, the attainment of self-sufficiency, and by living in a way which is more natural for humans than the machine of modernized civilization offers.

The Cynics would have almost certainly asked the questions: "What is the purpose of society?", "What are we doing?", "Is this happiness?", "What is the point of this great experiment and where is it going?" All of these questions would appear to be quite in line with the sort of thinking that characterizes most individuals who would identify themselves as hippies.

Interestingly, and perhaps not surprisingly given the way society treats those whom it deems a threat to its nature, the word Cynic is derived from the Ancient Greek word kynikos, which means "dog-like", and the word kyôn, which means "dog". Many explanations have been offered for why the first Cynics were given this name, however, it is almost certain that it was meant as a type of insult. Cynics seemed to have been amused by the term as is evidenced in the words of Diogenes who said, "other dogs bite their enemies, I bite my friends to save them."

One commentator stated: "There are four reasons why the Cynics are so named. First because of the indifference of their way of life, for they make a cult of indifference and, like dogs, eat and make love in public, go barefoot, and sleep in tubs and at crossroads. The second reason is that the dog is a shameless animal, and they make a cult of shamelessness, not as being beneath modesty, but as superior to it. The third reason is that the dog is a good guard, and they guard the tenets of their philosophy. The fourth reason is that the dog is a discriminating animal which can distinguish between friends and enemies."

In the late 18th and early 19th century, the term 'cynicism' came to be known as an attitude of scorn or jadedness, especially directed toward others as a general distrust of their professed motives. This modern definition would be in marked contrast to the ancient philosophy, which emphasized virtue and moral freedom through a liberation from convential social desires.

The founder of the school of Cynicism, is traditionally said to be Antisthenes (c. 445-365 BCE), who was a contemporary of Plato and a pupil of Socrates. His student, Diogenes of Sinope, is perhaps the most famous of the Cynics, likely due to his over-the-top antics. Diogenes was truly the most extreme of the Cynics.

Diogenes of Sinope (c. 412-323 BCE) was the son of a coin minter, who fled his home in Sinope after getting into some trouble for defacing the coinage. Shortly afterward, he travelled to Athens to study philosophy and challenge the established customs and values of society.

Diogenes taught by example and truly lived what he believed in. His goal was to demonstrate that wisdom and happiness can be found in the man who is independent from the constraints and false values of society, and that civilization itself was regressive. He maintained that all the artificialness of society was incompatible with happiness and that true morality necessitated a return to the simplicity of nature, saying, "Humans have complicated every simple gift of the gods."

When asked where he came from, Diogenes was known to reply, "I am a citizen of the world," which was a radical statement in his time since a man's identity was intimately tied to his citizenship in a particular city-state.

Diogenes believed that human beings lived very artificially and hypocritically, and that they would do well to study the dog. His reasoning was that dogs live in the present, have no anxiety, and they have no use for the pretensions of abstract philosophy. He thought these things as well as the uncanny ability of a dog to instinctly discern between a friend and a foe were excellent virtues, noting that unlike humans who either dupe others or who are duped, dogs will give an honest bark at the truth.

He was very well known for his antics, and among his more notable ones were sleeping in a tub, rolling a tub for no apparent reason, urinating on people who insulted him, and pointing at people with his middle finger. He is said to have walked about in the daylight with a lamp "seeking an honest man"; he requested a stick to chase creatures away from his body once he had perished – his way of commenting on the value of burial customs; and he is even said to have insulted Alexander the Great. On one ocassion Alexander found the philosopher looking attentively at a pile of bones. Diogenes is reported to have said, "I am looking for the bones of your father but cannot distinguish them from those of a slave." Another story relates that Alexander was thrilled to have met the philosopher and asked him if there was any favor he might grant him, whereby Diogenes replied, "Yes. Stand out of my sunlight."

Another story has it that there was a report out that Philip II was marching on Corinth, and the whole town was in a bustle. One man was furbishing arms, another was wheeling stones, and still others were patching walls and strengthening the battlement. Diogenes, having nothing to do, was so moved by the sight of all these men working so earnestly that he gathered up his philosopher's cloak and began rolling his tub up and down the Craneum. An acquaintance asked him why he was rolling the tub, to which Diogenes replied, “I do not want to be thought the only idler in such a busy multitude; I am rolling my tub to be like the rest,” which is an interesting way to say, “All the toils of civilized man are vain, and in fact, meaningless.”

In addition to Antisthenes and Diogenes of Sinope, other notable Cynics were Crates of Thebes, Onesicritus, Bion of Borysthenes, and Menippus of Gadara.

Cynicism was by far one of the most striking of all the Hellenistic philosophies. Much like the philosophies espoused by the hippie movement, it provided people with a sort of hope for a way in which to attain happiness and freedom in an age of great uncertainty. Although no official doctrine of Cynicism has ever existed, there are at least five core principles which can be summarized as:

  1. The purpose of life is to seek happiness and live in agreement with Nature.
  2. Happiness is attained through rigorous mental training, a positive attitude, and through becoming self-sufficient.
  3. The virtuous life is one in which the individual has freed their self from the influences of wealth, fame, power, greed, and other unnatural strivings, conventions and customs.
  4. Self-sufficiency is found in living a virtuous life. In other words, learning to live a simple life that is in agreement with Nature.
  5. The suffering in the world is ultimately caused by false judgments of value, which generate negative emotions and a vicious character. Another way to put it, is that concepts such as the high importance and value money is given in most modern societies are considered to be the major contributing factors to the overall decline in personal happiness and happiness as a whole.

So it was that the Cynics had little or no property – they were true minimalists. They held that a life lived in accord with nature required only the bare necessities, and thus they were perhaps some of the first civilized persons to dabble with the concept of “back to the earth” and a sort of primitivism. However, none of this necessarily meant that a Cynic would completely retreat from society, on the contrary, Cynics tended to live in full view of the public. The job of the Cynic philosopher was to evangelize humanity, as the watchdog of man, and thus they would colorfully point out the error of civilized humanity's ways while simultaneously leading them, by example, toward what the Cynic considered to be the ideal life of happiness where the individual was free from the illusions of commonly pursued social values, and in which he was self-sufficient and attuned with Nature.

Obviously not all Cynics were as extreme, or rather unconcerned with the way others took their antics, such as Diogenes, and the plethora of various hippies would be much the same. Not many hippies would think that urinating on someone who insults them is exactly a good way to go about changing the opinions of others, or that defacating in a theater, such as Diogenes is reported to have done, would somehow enlighten their fellow man. However, there are definite parallels between the ethics of the hippie counterculture and that of the Cynics, and it would seem quite self-evident that Cynicism has indeed been a philosophical undercurrent of the hippie movement.

Just as the Cynics, hippies come in many flavors, and all should not be lumped into the same categories of various extremist elements, or even into the exact same philosophical categories as many hippies are typically lumped by their contemporaries. For instance, there are Marxist-socialist hippies and there are also those with a more Libertarian economic philosophy, yet there are still others who really don't espouse an economic philosophy as they are much more like the Cynics in viewing money and property as being detrimental to the well-being of mankind, and ultimately the cause of much unhappiness.

The hippie philosophy has adopted many different philosophical viewpoints and should never be considered to be of any one, but it would seem that all hippies are somewhat cynical.

Peace. Alraune.

Sources:

Diogenes Laërtius, v. VI. The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature, 2nd edition.
Diogenes Laërtius, v. II. (1925). Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Loeb Classic Library, ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard Univeristy Press.
Kidd, I. (2005), in Rée, Jonathan; Urmson J. The Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy, Routledge.
Long, A.A. (1996), in Bracht Branham, R.; Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile. The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and Its Legacy, University of California Press.
Cynicism, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition. 2006. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Bertrand Russell. A History of Western Philosophy. Simon and Schuster.
Aristotle, Rhetoric.
Stobaeus, Florilgium.
Dudley, Donald R. (1937). A History of Cynicism from Diogenes to the 6th Centruy A.D., Cambridge.
Lucian, Historia.
Cicero, Tusculanae Quaestiones.