I don't think this is fair. It can be said of Kant and Hegel as well. — Xtrix

I'm happy to grant them cult status as well.

Ontology is fascinating to me, and I don't think you can be really serious about it unless you hear Heidegger out in good faith. — Xtrix

The study of the "nature of being" doesn't fascinate me, I'm afraid. You're welcome to it, however.

regarding Heidegger as Nazi and villain and all that: who knows. That's debated, but frankly I'm in the group who doesn't really care all that much. — Xtrix

I don't think even his most frenzied, fanatic followers dispute the fact he was a Nazi, or if they do have at least stopped doing so openly. As Joshs will tell you, this is common (and so uninteresting) knowledge. But it seems there are good Nazis, or perhaps that a certain Nazi is, shall we say, "beyond good and evil."

It's true, alas, that I'm only a lawyer, though not the sadly stereotypical lawyer you evoke, and so can't aspire to be a real philosopher like yourself. Is stereotyping something philosophers get to do? I'm curious. But perhaps we lawyers are indeed too calculating and hustling to have or understand Dasein, like the Jews according to Heidegger as I'm sure you know. Would I be more acceptable as a philosopher if I was a Nazi, like him?

But let me explain regarding "villain." I tend to think of villains as being seriously evil. I think Heidegger was too craven a person to be a true villain, but acknowledge that villains in literature, for example, need not be seriously evil. So it may well be that he was a villain in a small, mean sense. Like Uriah Heep, for example (Dicken's Heep, not the rock band). You have your wish, then; I think he was a villain, or at least villainous.

I should also explain what I mean by "cult." I don't refer to the Heaven's Gate or Jim Jones kind of cult. I mean a cult of the kind which existed in ancient Greek or Rome (primarily Rome), like that of Isis or Mithras, or the Great Mother. These were "mysteries" because what was taught to or learned by initiates was considered secret. Especially in the case of Mithraism, the secrets were very well kept. Isis was said to chose her initiates, through dreams. Initiates obtained special knowledge which gave them enlightenment and salvation. The knowledge was, naturally enough, expressed through certain words, which had meaning only the initiated could truly understand and interpret. Just as only the initiates of Heidegger can understand or interpret his words.

You seem disappointed that I refer only to well known statements or actions of Heidegger, because they put him in a bad light. Well, perhaps some other stash will be discovered one day and even more about him will come to light. Until then, we know what he did, and said, and wrote. Ecce Homo!

Still waiting for an explanation of the German being and its secret mission.

I see. You're impressed that some his best friends were Jewish. I know he, when 36 and married, was pleased to seduce his young Jewish student, Hannah Arendt. Perhaps you think that's to his credit as well. I know how he treated his mentor, Husserl, turning his back on him and even removing the dedication to him appearing in Being and Time in 1941 (putting it back in after the war). Didn't attend his funeral/cremation either. I wonder how his Jewish best friends would feel about him if they had the opportunity to read his Black Notebooks.

But I haven't referred to Heidi's anti-Semitism. You brought that up. Why defend him to me for his bigotry?

What is there to gain from a historical-biographical analysis? The basic facts of his history can be obtained easily enough. I don't think he was a villain in any case. He was simply someone who greatly admired Hitler, urged German students while he was rector to follow Hitler, was a member of Nazi Party continuously through the war, never condemned the Nazis, never condemned or even mentioned the Holocaust (except very briefly in a single instance and tangentially, comparing it to the industrialization of agriculture), never expressed regret for being a Nazi--that sort of fellow. For me, that makes for a pretty damn disagreeable person. You may not find any of that concerning, of course.

All that aside, tell me--what is the German being and its "secret mission"? Perhaps if I knew that I'd think him to be a hero.

Why would you give the "thumbs-up" to the voice of ignorance? — Janus

Ah now, you've hurt my feelings.

And why? I've already acknowledged that I haven't been initiated in the cult of Heidegger, and so you should expect I'm unable to interpret him; no, perhaps "experience" or "encounter" him is more appropriate.

All I've said is that he was capable of clarity even to the uninitiated, and this is indisputable, I think. For example, from a letter to his brother:

With each day that passes we see Hitler growing as a statesman. The world of our Volk and Reich is about to be transformed and everyone who has eyes with which to watch, ears with which to listen, and a heart to spur him into action will find himself captivated by genuine, deep excitement—once again, we are met with a great reality and with the pressure of having to build this reality into the spirit of the Reich and the secret mission of the German being […]

He even uses "being"! The German being has a "secret mission" but perhaps you already knew that. I confess I find that unclear, though suggestive. Is "being" here a thing, a German thing?

And who can forget this perfectly unambiguous statement: The Fuhrer himself and he alone is German reality and its law, today and for the future.

If one of Heidegger's interpreters came out in agreement with the view you express here, there might be grounds for agreement. But it remains very unclear just what is being asserted about being. — Banno

I've been told more than once by those who've been initiated into the mysteries of Heidegger that it's incumbent on me to learn what he's saying (what the words he uses really mean), and that I shouldn't expect clarity from him, clarity being a kind of childish concern to begin with. When I was less kind then I am now, I used to reply I knew he was capable of clarity since he was perfectly clear in his praise of Der Fuhrer. But now I refrain from calling him a loathsome Nazi toady.

They called Rorty a Pragmatist as well as Quine. I don't think Peirce or Dewey would've agreed with that. Not sure about James in this case. — Manuel

Don't know enough about Quine, but would agree with Susan Haack and others that Rorty and other "neo-pragmatists" do pragmatism a disservice.

This by way of objecting to treating being as the name of something. — Banno

I quite agree. I think it's spectacularly silly to study or treat being as if it is a thing, and so am silly in doing so.

But that says nothing. And shows less. — Banno

Well, when has that mattered? Being need merely be; it need not say or show anything. Like ontology, it merely is.

Just as the Nothing nothings, Being, being Being, itself beings.

Are there more mental illness now vs. before Social media was discovered? — TheQuestion

I wonder whether we can know how prevalent mental illness was in times past, which is to say, any time prior to creation of the internet, or earlier. Some of what is now considered mental illness wasn't discussed, or even taken note of, not all that long ago. Psychiatry and Psychology are fairly recent developments, in fact. For all we know the percentage of those with mental illness when compared with the population was greater two hundred years ago than it is now. Records of mental illness then and earlier would be sparse and likely limited to extreme cases. Those with mental illness didn't have the means to make others aware of it then to the extent they can now.

It's good to know the Porch and the Garden have some views in common.

For a Stoic and even an aspiring one, that we will die is beyond our control, and so should not disturb us. We may be able to control the manner in which we die, or the time when we die, however, and to that extent those are matters of significance.

I'm not using the dictionary version of "interpreting," which is similar to saying "it's just your opinion." It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of perception. We all perceive, and so we all interpret. A glass being half full or empty is also an interpretation -- it doesn't mean there's no glass there. — Xtrix

What definition are you employing, then? If you define "interpreting" as "seeing" you certainly may do so if you like, of course, but it seems misguided.

I agree with Putnam that what we see doesn't depend solely on what's "out there." Neither does it depend solely on what's "in here." What we see, do and think is a result of our interaction with the rest of the world. Sometimes we interpret when interacting; sometimes we don't.

When I see a radish, I see just what a human being with (relatively) normal eyesight would see. If I was colorblind, I would see just what a human being who was colorblind would see. If I see a radish at sunup I'd see what a human being would see on looking at a radish at sunup; if I see it at sundown I'd see what a human being would see then. This isn't my interpretation of a radish, however. It's me (a human being) looking at a radish in certain circumstances or under certain conditions and seeing what a human being would see in that case.

A bird looking at a radish isn't engaged in interpretation. Neither are we.

Apparently, "interpretation" is one of those lit-crit loan words in philosophy which is easier than most other terms to over-interpret. — 180 Proof

When we way "all is interpretation" we misuse "interpret" and "interpretation" as they're defined in dictionaries and ordinary use. When we interpret something we explain it, or judge it, or translate it depending on context; we do something intentionally, and our interpretation may be wrong or inadequate. We do none of those things when we see something; we simply do what people with sight do--that is to say, see as human beings do. There's typically no thought involved.

To say I'm interpreting when I see a radish implies something about seeing which makes it a matter of dispute. Seeing a radish thus becomes a matter of debate or dispute; did I see a radish, or is that merely me interpreting again? It seems a way of assuring that all day to day living is considered uncertain or questionable, which I suppose is pleasing to some. It's a trope, though.

It’s all interpretation. Once you’re thinking or talking about it, you’re interpreting. If you perceive, you’re interpreting. Take vision as an example. — Xtrix

What is it you interpret vision to be interpreting?

I believe I understand what you're saying, but I think that there comes a point when insisting all is interpretation becomes meaningless, or pedantic (no offense intended). That may be the Pragmatist in me. When we assert that when I see a chair I'm interpreting it, I doubt we're saying anything significant. When we claim that we can distinguish a human being from a potato, I don't think this is an interpretation in any reasonable sense.

I think we're saying different things, or perhaps I'm being unclear.

Christians, Hindus, Moslems, Romans, Vandals, Han, Mayans, all humans, now alive or previously alive; none of them take, or took, a squirrel (for example) to be a human being. They were quite able to distinguish themselves and other humans from other creatures and from things. They didn't ask themselves "What am I (or what is my friend or enemy); an armadillo, or a human being?"

They also know/knew things about human beings which aren't limited to physical attributes but have in common. They know/knew that human beings get angry, get sad, get happy, etc. They know/knew we get hungry, eat, procreate, fight--they and we know a great deal about what a human being is and would agree that such characteristics are common to human beings. There would be no dispute regarding whether a person was a human being having such characteristics.

We obviously dispute other things--whether Jesus is our savior; whether we're the spawn of extraterrestrials; whether we're God's creatures; whether Adam and Eve were our ancestors, whether we have immortal souls. These are issues, as you say, of interpretation. They're may also be issues of speculation, faith, wishful thinking.

When we speak of what something "really" is we're saying that it is or may be something in addition to or more than or different from what we all agree it is.

The question as to how to distinguish a human being from other animals, with its very obvious answers is not at all the same question as "what does it mean to be a human being", though. — Janus

And that, essentially, is my point. "What does it mean to be a human being?" is not the same question as "What is a human being?"

Add to that the basic mystery of the Real, of existence itself; questions that have had more and more elaborate stories, and more and more questioning of the stories themselves, spun around them over millennia and the modern situation doesn't seem so strange. — Janus

I'm merely suggesting that what prompts a person to ask "What is a human being?" isn't any confusion on the part of the person. The person has no doubt the person, and other persons, are human beings. That person doesn't have any problem distinguishing a human being from an owl, or an ant.

The person asking the question is either engaged in a kind of academic exercise, wishing to describe a human being for who knows what reason, or listing what it is that distinguished human beings from insects (for example) or wondering whether a human being is something more than what he/she/whatever already knows to be the case, or perhaps determine what a human being should be.

We're also a bunch of atoms nonetheless. We're also the "rational animal." We're also "creatures of God." We're also "minds" and "selves." To pick one of these and say "Here is the REAL truth" is just nonsense. It's an interpretation. That doesn't make it untrue -- it just means it's not the only truth. — Xtrix

The "REAL truth" isn't at issue. Your point as I recall was that we humans ask ourselves (among other things) "what we are" (I paraphrase). My contention is we know what we are, but enjoy thinking otherwise; in fact prefer to think otherwise--usually, that we're more than we are or appear to be. I think that's what we're doing when we ask ourselves: What is a human being?

It happens we can be reasonably certain that we're made up of atoms. We're also reasonably certain that we're living creatures in a world with other things we interact with on a daily basis (putting aside the silly claims some philosophers are pleased to make now and then). It would be incorrect, though, for us to say human beings are "God's creatures" or creatures that have souls, for example. To the extent we make such claims when asking what we are, I think we engage in wishful thinking. Maybe we are, maybe we do, but to assert we are/do is unwarranted.

We're distinguished in that we're the only entities with a world. Animals don't have worlds, they have environments. — Xtrix

I'm uncertain what this means. They're as much a part of the world as we are. We're peculiar animals, certainly, but animals nonetheless.

It's a naturalistic view, as you say, though I have a rather broad view of nature, as I include in it all we think and feel as well as what we do. I think we have much yet to learn about nature (the universe) and it may include more than what it appears to include to us now. Until we learn what that "more" is, though, we speculate and are inclined to wishful thinking.

That’s not how I live, nor how anyone I know lives. We can think it and say it, but an “organism trying to survive” isn’t my experience. First and foremost I’m engaged with someone or something, I’m moving towards something, I’m caring about our interested in something. I have a world, not an environment. — Xtrix

This is part of how we interact with the rest of the world, or universe (which for me is the environment in which we exist). It's part of how we live, which is to say survive. We have certain characteristics which come into play when we interact with the world and each other. Certain of those characteristics distinguish us from other living organisms, and thus we interact with the rest of the world differently than they do in many cases. Those characteristics may be physical. But not entirely physical--we desire certain things, need certain things, fear certain things, try to resolve problems or alter situations we encounter or discover to our benefit. But nonetheless we're living organisms and our lives are our interactions with the rest of the world we inhabit.

Have we? And what’s that? — Xtrix

Essentially and in short, a living organism in an environment, trying to survive as well as as possible given the characteristics we have and the resources available to us or which we can acquire. Much like any other living organism. All else is nuance, dependent largely on circumstances and matters at hand.

What is a heirophant? — Xtrix

A very hairy elephant, I believe, though not a mammoth.

But this is all pointless talk about history, etymology, abstraction, and soaring speculation, which should be as relevant to us and our personal, everyday concerns as a mathematical theorem is -- that is, until we grasp the following fact: along with answers to the question "What is existence/what is being?" there comes an answer to the question "What is a human being?"

"What is a human being?" What can be more relevant to us? It's often the basis for what's considered a "good" life (i.e., the question "What should I do with my life?"), and so ethics and morality; for proposals about how to organize society -- and so the basis for politics; and for claims about human nature -- and so the basis for humanity's goals and about the future of the species ("Where are we going?") — Xtrix

We've always known what we are, I think. We merely find that to be unsatisfying, or in any case insufficient in some way. So, we contrive a definition of "human being" that's more agreeable to our conceit, and from that definition we "build haunted heaven" to use the words of Wallace Stevens. We ask ourselves: Why does that "human being" exist? What should that "human being" do?

Futility is a great utility in ultimate beliefs. — god must be atheist

The belief in it also serves to justify inaction, which can be comforting.

But I venture to say that to train someone in capitalistic, consumer-oriented, individualist, greedy, egotist, narcissistic behaviour takes five minutes, and it is totally successful. — god must be atheist

And so, by all means be capitalistic, consumer-oriented, greedy, egotistic and narcissistic, but in any case don't try to be otherwise. It can't be done!

Of course. Seeking fame for the sake of fame, wealth for the sake of wealth, etc. would be wrong from the Stoic perspective. But from what I understood, the Stoics were in favor of making good use of one's time and energy, which, if one has the predispositions and resources for them, would result in wealth, power, fame, etc. The Stoics were proactive about worldly matters. Like you say later, "Epictetus suggests we make the best use of what's in our power, and take the rest as it happens." The Stoics weren't like, for example, Buddhist monks who are forbidden from working for a living. (We could even compare the Stoics to Boy Scouts.) — baker

Well, not Boy Scouts, I hope. I had trouble being a mere Cub Scout.

Seneca is sometimes thought to be a hypocrite or worse for claiming to be a Stoic while becoming rich and powerful during Nero's Principate (until Neo turned on him, of course). He defended himself from those claims, of course, maintaining (if I recall correctly) that wealth and power would not necessarily cause someone to be without virtue, and could even be used virtuously. Over time, I think Stoicism came to accept that certain conditions though they may result from things beyond our control aren't to be avoided solely for that reason, and may be "preferred" as a result. And, the Stoics thought that we're all citizens of the universe, united by the fact that we all carry within ourselves a part of the Divine Reason which generates and guides it, and should be treated well by each other accordingly.

I do believe there are perfections worth striving for, primarily, perfect happiness and perfect knowledge. — baker

I agree we should strive for them--make great efforts to obtain them. But we're imperfect beings in an imperfect world.

Again, is this the Aristotelian conception of arete or virtue? Also, there are preferred indifferents.

As a side issue of this thread, do you think apatheia is a natural conclusion of Stoicism or even quietism? — Shawn

The Stoic view of virtue as I understand it is distinguished from Aristotle's because in the Stoic view virtue is the only true, or real, good. So, virtue itself is sufficient for happiness according to the Stoics. External goods and even bodily goods are not needed, though they may provide benefits to a person--thus "preferred" indifferents. The Stoics claim that happiness isn't dependent on those goods, i.e., the claim it's possible to have happiness without fame, wealth, power, and even friends or lovers.

Apatheia in the sense of being without disturbance, without fear, without negative emotions or passions (anger, hate) is what the Stoics strive for; not indifference to all things.

I understand the condemnation is due to their not being in our control and can all be lost rather easily. Virtue, on the other hand, is said to be something that we can control, and not as easily lost. — praxis

I think the ancient Stoics thought that fame, wealth, etc. were ephemeral, and so were easily lost. So, you see Marcus Aurelius referring to the court of Vespasian or even of Augustus and how little they're remembered or thought of in his time. I also think that they felt that pursuing them requires that we concern ourselves with things beyond our control. But I think the fact that fame, wealth and power are temporary wasn't the only basis on which their pursuit was considered unworthy. I think they were considered insignificant as not conducive to virtue.

I don't see Stoicism as being a perfect system of philosophy. Rather it gives guidelines and exercises in thought and considered, careful action. — Amity

I think the same. It's a wise way of living.

Because the philosophy of the Stoics isn't the philosophy of someone who has given up on life, it's not quietism; it's also not the philosophy of someone who is simply trying to develop a soothing narrative for their troublesome life. No, it's the philosophy of someone who is proactive; someone who seeks to be in control, but who also recognizes the limits of it. And who never gives up. The best description I can think of for this is "ambitious". — baker

That's an interesting perspective. I think "ambitious" is commonly defined as having a desire for fame, wealth, power, prestige, achievement, etc., in other words for things which make a person impressive, notable to others and influential over others. Ancient Stoicism expressly condemned that desire. I'm aware of the fact that some people who claim to be Stoics today think it can help us succeed in business. That's clearly a perversion of ancient Stoicism. There are those who claim accepting Jesus as our savior will help us succeed as well (like Joel Olsteen, I believe).

But I think you're right that the Stoic seeks to achieve certain things, like tranquility, equanimity.

It's very important whether any Stoic attained sagehood, ataraxia, aequanimitas. Humility aside, if they have not attained the highest goal of what they're teaching, then they're giving advice they themselves were unable to follow through. Which means we're justified to doubt their advice, and their whole philosophy. — baker

If we're justified in abstaining from any practice or philosophy which doesn't result in our perfect happiness (or tranquility, or enlightenment), then I doubt we'll find anything which meets with our satisfaction. I don't expect perfection in life, or knowledge. Epictetus suggests we make the best use of what's in our power, and take the rest as it happens. I do what I can do with what I have to promote my own tranquility and do right by others, and try not to let what I can't prevent from happening stop me from doing so. It seems a very sensible, even admirable way to live, to me.

I'd love to see these modern-day stoics (and the old ones, too, actually) cope with some real problems, like poverty on the verge of homelessness or grave illness, or both. — baker

There's no doubt that it would be difficult to live a Stoic life. That may be why professed Stoics like Marcus Aurelius were inclined to engage in the discipline of constantly reminding themselves of what that would entail--in his case in his writings which have come to be known as the Meditations, but which were never intended for publication; most likely they were "spiritual exercises" as Pierre Hadot says.

At last. What took you so long ? :wink: — Amity

I sometimes think I've said all I have to say about certain subjects. Then, suddenly, I think I haven't.

Surely slaves were ambitious? Or at least our particular slave here was.

But here's the catch: How many Stoics actually attained ataraxia, aequanimitas? — baker

It was a peculiarity of the Roman institution of slavery (and perhaps ancient slavery in general) that slaves had very few rights and were deemed to be of very low social status, but could be freed and, once freed, could become wealthy and powerful mostly through their wealth, and sometimes their association with emperors as those who did the hard work of governing. But there's no evidence that Epictetus was "ambitious" in the sense we would use that word, I think.

Little enough is known of him, but what we do know suggests he wasn't. He was born a slave. He was eventually freed by his master, and taught philosophy in Rome until the Emperor Domitian (not a particularly tolerant man) banished all philosophers from the city. He was "lame" as they used to say, due to physical abuse while he was a slave, or disabled from birth (the sources disagree). After his banishment he went to Nicopolis in Greece and lived there for the rest of his life, teaching philosophy. The sources indicate he lived very simply, had very few possessions, never married, and eventually adopted the child of a friend who otherwise would have been abandoned. He wrote nothing that is known. His Discourses and Enchiridion were derived from notes of his teachings taken by his student Arrian.

He was honored and respected by some influential men of his time, including Marcus Aurelius, though Marcus never knew him or attended his lectures. That's about all we know.

The ancient Stoics often would elaborate on how a true Stoic Sage, who had perfected himself, would think and react to events, but it's recognized this was an ideal. I don't know if anyone ever became a Sage, but if they did I doubt it's something they would claim to be. History indicates that there were those who were professed members of the Stoic school who accepted their deaths at the hands of emperors they had angered with courage and tranquility, like Seneca and the senators known as the "Stoic Martyrs." There's a story about Epictetus that he was tortured while a slave and pointed out to his torturer that if he kept it up he'd break Epictetus' leg, and that once he broke it Epictetus said something like 'I told you so." I'm inclined to think that story is like the stories which were told regarding Christians who were tortured or martyred and how they acted while in pain or dying; i.e., not credible.

Sounds like something said by someone very powerful, someone on whom others depend for mercy.
— baker

That might be because it was said by someone very powerful... — Tom Storm

I've come rather late to this thread, and may have missed something. But you understand Epictetus was a slave, right? Slaves generally weren't considered powerful men in the Roman Empire of the first century C.E.

He was a slave of a functionary in the court of Nero. His master may have been a former slave himself.

A great poem by a great poet, who was a student of and friend to Santayana, and wrote many philosophical poems. He wrote a poem about Santayana: To an Old Philosopher in Rome. Other poems of his I think philosophical are The Snow Man, and The Ultimate Poem is Abstract. Also Sunday Morning, of course. He was something of a naturalist, I think, but as Sunday Morning indicates he was aware of the longing for something more.

Rome, totally blew it with their white togas. Imagine how much better their economy could have been with a wide variety of clothes and seasonal changes in what we wear. — Athena

The toga was a garment worn only on formal and ceremonial occasions, you'll be relieved to hear.

The power and glory of Rome. Why do we admire it?

For a number of reasons, I think, for all its faults (which are not peculiar to it). For its development of a system of laws that continues even today in various forms (even in Louisiana, where the laws are derivative of the Napoleonic Code, which retained a good deal of Roman law); for the fact that it managed to develop a system of government which ruled over diverse nations and peoples for well over a thousand years if we include the Roman successor states in Western Europe and the Eastern Empire, which though in diminishing form lasted until the 15th century; because it extended citizenship to all people in the Empire; because the Principate became open to men from the provinces (e.g. Spain, North Africa, the Balkan region) and wasn't limited men from Rome itself or Italy; because its longevity assured that Greek art and knowledge as modified by the Latin tradition survived even Christianity; that sort of thing. There has never been anything like it in the West--all Western law, culture and society must look back to it and is reliant on it.

I think we can assume he was not a liberal when it comes to property rights. — Athena

Cicero was a novus homo, the first in his family to become a member of the Roman Senate and a consul. Having mastered the system, he came to champion it in the struggle to retain the Republic, thus becoming an enemy of Julius Caesar and the first and second triumvirates, (he was killed by order of the second triumverate), forerunners of the Empire. Not a liberal, no; more a conservative along the lines of Burke (actually, Burke was along the lines of Cicero).

I am not terribly worried about the poor if they can continue to have the essentials of life, such as family and community, — Athena

Ah, perhaps then you agree with Jesus when he said the poor will always be with us. He's been interpreted as saying that we should accordingly be generous to them. But we're not a generous people, are we? Except perhaps sporadically and by impulse. We care far too much about ourselves, our rights, our property, to trouble ourselves with others, and resent it when we're made to even indirectly. Why should other people have the benefit of our money? Here in God's favorite country we're not that far away now from the times in which John Steinbeck's character Tom Joad lived, and are different only to the extent that social welfare programs exist.

My memory is poor, but seems to me, Cicero was clueless about the reality of those who went to war for Rome and lost their land while they were gone to war! Not only did they loose their land, but they could not get jobs because of slavery. The wealthy were wealthy because they owned land and had slaves. They also held the seats of power and that means the system was to benefit the wealthy, not all citizens.
To a degree, giving the landless bread and circus prevented a violent revolution, but if I recall correctly some generals lead their troops to fight for what they believed they deserved, and in time these generals came to the seats of power. Should I look for more information? — Athena

I'm not sure about your information, or what it's based on.

Cicero died in 43 B.C.E. I don't recall reading any writing of his addressing land ownership or loss of land by men of the legions.

Owning land stopped being a requirement for military service as part of the reforms made by Gaius Marius in about 100 B.C.E. I don't know how many men of the legions owned land from that time forward, let alone lost land. Marius began the development of the legions as a professional force. They were provided with equipment, armor and weapons. They could receive land or additional pay on retirement.

Towards the end of the Roman Republic, generals like Sulla, Caesar and Pompey began to reward their legions with loot obtained during successful campaigns, and they became loyal to and dependent on their generals. The civil wars began which ended with the establishment of the Principate by Augustus, who standardized soldiers pay and guaranteed them land and money on retirement. Augustus and successor emperors sought to make the soldiers loyal to the emperor.

We get the reference to "bread and circuses" from Juvenal, who wrote in the late first and early second centuries C.E.

There certainly were wealthy people, some of them former slaves (freedmen), and slaves, and there were also people who were not wealthy, and neither slaves nor freedmen, but lived and made or didn't make money. The system certainly favored the wealthy. That's been the case throughout history, however.

As much as I like Cicero, I fault him for having a very poor understanding of economics. — Athena

Actually, he asked the question in connection with his defense of someone accused of a crime. The sense of it is, that in determining who did something it's appropriate to ask who benefited from the act. And, it should be Cui bono fuisset.

I wonder sometimes what those who decry socialism so frequently here in our Glorious Union think it to be. I suspect they don't think it's an economic system, one by which the means of production, etc., are owned by the government. They seem more inclined to deem it anything which they think benefits others (particularly certain others) more than it benefits them, or which limits their ability to do what they want to do, or which serves to persuade others not to think as they do. So for example Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, public education, welfare systems, have all been described as "socialist" or "socialism" by some in our Great Republic at one time or another, and have been claimed to sap us of our virtue and responsibility.

One must ask, with my daemon Cicero--Qui bono fuisset? Who benefits from efforts to undermine and demonize a government's assistance to its people?

Here's the real cure; perhaps it may be called philosophical:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJUhlRoBL8M