Porphyry On Abstinence From Animal Food

This Is A New Release Of The Original 1876 Edition.

This Is A New Release Of The Original 1876 Edition.

Should a philosopher be vegetarian? This question had been famously answered in the affirmative in a classic work on philosophical vegetarianism: On Abstinence from Eating Animals, written by the Neoplatonist Porphyry in the third century AD. This study traces the rekindling of interest in On Abstinence in the Renaissance. It shows that long before the term 'vegetarianism' emerged, philosophers, physicians and religious figures discussed the advantages and disadvantages of choosing a meat-free diet. As On Abstinence circulated, via editions and translations, the key questions posed by Porphyry stimulated new debates: is vegetarianism compatible with religious piety? Does a vegetable diet promote or endanger health and longevity? What can be learnt from observing the diets of other, geographically distant populations, such as the vegetarian Brahmans of India, or the cannibals in America? And finally, is it ethically justifiable to eat beings to which sentience and rationality may be attributed? Cecilia Muratori is Research Fellow at the Centre for Anglo-German Cultural Relations, Queen Mary University of London, and Tutor in Philosophy at the Institute of Continuing Education, University of Cambridge.

Porphyry's On Abstinence from Killing Animals is one of the most interesting books from Greek antiquity for both philosophers and historians. In it, Porphyry relates the arguments for eating or sacrificing animals and then goes on to argue that an understanding of humans and gods shows such sacrifice to be inappropriate, that an understanding of animals shows it to be unjust, and that a knowledge of non-Greeks shows it to be unnecessary. There are no Neoplatonist commentaries on Aristotle's Ethics from the period AD 250-600. Thus, although this work is not a commentary on Aristotle, it fills a gap in this series by going to the heart of ethical debates among Neoplatonists around AD 300, and revealing one ascetic Neoplatonist's view of the ideal way of life. It also records rival positions taken on the treatment of animals by Greek philosophers over the previous six hundred years.

What does it mean to say that a human being is body and soul, and how does each affect the other? Late antique philosophers, Christians included, asked these central questions. The papers collected here explore their answers, and use those answers to ask further questions, reading Iamblichus, Porphyry, Augustine and others in their social and intellectual context. Among the topics dealt with are the following. Humans are mortal rational beings, so how does the mortal body affect the rational soul? The body needs food: what foods are best for the soul, and is it right to eat animal foods if animals are less rational than humans? The body is gendered for reproduction: are reason and the soul also gendered? Ascetic lifestyles may free our bodies from the limitations of gender and desire, so that our souls are free to reconnect with the divine; but this need must be balanced with the claims of family and society. Philosophers asked whether life in the body is exile for the soul; Christians defended their claim that body as well as soul would live after death, and even the smallest fragment of a martyr's body is proof of resurrection.