Nature and Psychology in Cicero’s Republic
Philipp Brüllmann
Abstract
Philipp Brüllmann
Abstract
This paper defends two claims about Cicero’s Republic. First, the argument of Books I and II calls for a discussion of psychological issues. If the ideas about the best constitution outlined in these two books are to make any sense, then certain assumptions about human psychology need to be true, or at least plausible. Second, in order to show that these assumptions are true or at least plausible, Cicero introduces, in Rep. III, a certain view of the cosmos. The dispute over naturalism vs. conventionalism about justice is used by Cicero as a vehicle for a discussion of psychological topics.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This paper defends two claims about Cicero’s Republic. First, the argument of Books I and II calls for a discussion of psychological issues. If the ideas about the best constitution outlined in these two books are to make any sense, then certain assumptions about human psychology need to be true, or at least plausible. Second, in order to show that these assumptions are true or at least plausible, Cicero introduces, in Rep. III, a certain view of the cosmos. The dispute over naturalism vs. conventionalism about justice is used by Cicero as a vehicle for a discussion of psychological topics.
Key concepts: Cicero, Epistemology, Constitution, Argument (complex analysis), Naturalism, Philosophy, Order (exchange), Economic Justice