Tamara Plećaš

The paper discusses the difference between philosophy and sophistry. More precisely, it discusses the differences between Socrates and Sophists of the first generation, as well as the differences between Epictetus and Sophists of both first and second generation. While Sophists were the first professional teachers and Epictetus one of the greatest Stoic teachers of all times, Socrates, according to Plato, denied being a teacher by any means, despite many who thought otherwise. Sophists were known for their speeches that most attracted those with a wish to be successful politicians. Socrates and Epictetus were also excellent orators surrounded by Athenian and Roman politicians. However, that didn’t make them Sophists. Socrates and Epictetus opted for a life in accordance with excellence that could be achieved by philosophy rather than rhetoric. Rhetoric could only have instrumental value, not an intrinsic one.

This paper aims to show that the idea of a female friendship in Ancient Greece and Rome is possible, even in terms of an “ideal” friendship, i.e. form of a friendship ancient philosophers aspired to. The author of this paper will elucidate the position of women in Greece and Rome and points out that various women actively participated in the work of the philosophical schools and women’s societies. In accordance with the philosophical ideals, “ideal,” “perfect” or “genuine” friends could only be those who possess or at least strive for moral virtue (ἀρετή), while education (παιδεία) was seen as a precondition for acquiring moral virtue. Having in mind that various women met that precondition, it is emphasized that the ideal friendship could be ascribed not only to virtuous men but also to virtuous women. Thus, educated women could potentially be both, “ideal” and “ordinary” friends.

In this article, our focus is on the topic of engagement and possibility of empathy with future generations. We acknowledge that empathy for future generations is practically unattainable in its strictest sense due to the lack of access to their potential mental states and the absence of direct interaction. Additionally, we will draw upon the arguments presented by Goldie and Slaby to address concerns regarding the potential paternalization that may arise in empathic relations towards future generations. However, despite these limitations, it is important to emphasize that we are still engaged with future generations. Instead of adopting a paternalizing approach where we impose expectations on how they should feel, our engagement exposes us to the anticipated but unknown judgments of future generations. Throughout this article, we will argue that engagement with future generations brings out our own social self-consciousness and provides a basis of our connectedness and responsibility towards future generations.