This collection deals with utopias in the Greek and Roman worlds. Plato is the first and foremost name that comes to mind and, accordingly, 3 chapters (J. Annas; D. El Murr; A. Hazistavrou) are devoted to his various approaches to utopia in the Republic, Timaeus and Laws. But this volume's central vocation and originality comes from our taking on that theme in many other philosophical authors and literary genres. The philosophers include Aristotle (Ch. Horn) but also Cynics (S. Husson), Stoics (G. Reydams-Schils) and Cicero (S. McConnell). Other literary genres include comedic works from Aristophanes up to Lucian (G. Sissa; S. Kidd; N.I. Kuin) and history from Herodotus up to Diodorus Siculus (T. Lockwood; C. Atack; I. Sulimani). A last comparative chapter is devoted to utopias in Ancient China (D. Engels).

While the field of classics has informed and influenced the early developments of the field of psychology, these two disciplines presently enjoy fewer fruitful cross-fertilizations than one would expect. This book shows how the study of classics can help psychologists anchor their scientific findings in a historical, literary and philosophical framework, while insights of contemporary psychology offer new hermeneutic methods and explanations to classicists. This book is the first to date to offer a wide-ranging overview of the possibilities of marrying contemporary trends in psychology and classical studies. Advocating a critical dialogue between both disciplines, it offers novel reflections on psychotherapy, ancient philosophy, social psychology, literature and its theory, historiography, psychoanalysis, tragedy, the philosophy of mind, linguistics and reception. With twenty contributions by specialists in different fields, it promotes the combination of classical and psychological perspectives, and demonstrates the methods and rewards of such an endeavour through concrete case studies. This pioneering book is thus intended for all readers who seek inspiration for their readings, research, or therapeutic practice.

Proclus' "On the Existence of Evils" is not a commentary, but helps to compensate for the dearth of Neoplatonist ethical commentaries. The central question addressed in the work is: how can there be evil in a providential world? Neoplatonists agree that it cannot be caused by higher and worthier beings. Plotinus had said that evil is matter, which, unlike Aristotle, he collapsed into mere privation or lack, thus reducing its reality. He also protected higher causes from responsibility by saying that evil may result from a combination of goods. Proclus objects: evil is real, and not a privation. Rather, it is a parasite feeding off good. Parasites have no proper cause, and higher beings are thus vindicated as being the causes only of the good off which evil feeds.

In this treatise Proclus discusses ten problems on providence and fate, foreknowledge of the future, human responsibility, evil and punishment (or seemingly absence of punishment), social and individual responsibility for evil, and the unequal fate of different animals. These problems, he admits, had been discussed a thousand times in and outside philosophical schools. Yet, as he put it: we too have to discuss them, not because we imagine that the philosophers before us have said anything valuable, but because our soul desires 'to speak and hear about these problems and wants to turn to itself and to discuss as it were with itself and is not willing to take arguments about these issues only from authorities outside'. Proclus exhorts his readers: we are to use his treatise as an opportunity to investigate these problems for ourselves 'in the secret recess of our soul' and 'exercise ourselves in the solutions of problems'. In fact, it makes no difference whether what we discuss has been said before by philosophers, so long as we express what corresponds to our own views. This exhortation may be the best presentation of the translation of this wonderful treatise from late antiquity.

While the field of classics has informed and influenced the early developments of the field of psychology, these two disciplines presently enjoy fewer fruitful cross-fertilizations than one would expect. This book shows how the study of classics can help psychologists anchor their scientific findings in a historical, literary and philosophical framework, while insights of contemporary psychology offer new hermeneutic methods and explanations to classicists. This book is the first to date to offer a wide-ranging overview of the possibilities of marrying contemporary trends in psychology and classical studies. Advocating a critical dialogue between both disciplines, it offers novel reflections on psychotherapy, ancient philosophy, social psychology, literature and its theory, historiography, psychoanalysis, tragedy, the philosophy of mind, linguistics and reception. With twenty contributions by specialists in different fields, it promotes the combination of classical and psychological perspectives, and demonstrates the methods and rewards of such an endeavour through concrete case studies. This pioneering book is thus intended for all readers who seek inspiration for their readings, research, or therapeutic practice.

'The universe is, as it were, one machine, wherein the celestial spheres are analogous to the interlocking wheels and the particular beings are like the things moved by the wheels, and all events are determined by an inescapable necessity. To speak of free choice or self determination is only an illusion we human beings cherish.' Thus writes Theodore the engineer to his old friend Proclus, one of the last major Classical philosophers. Proclus' reply is one of the most remarkable discussions on fate, providence and free choice in Late Antiquity. It continues a long debate that had started with the first polemics of the Platonists against the Stoic doctrine of determinism. How can there be a place for free choice and moral responsibility in a world governed by an unalterable fate? Proclus discusses ten problems on providence and fate, foreknowledge of the future, human responsibility, evil and punishment (or seemingly absence of punishment), social and individual responsibility for evil, and the unequal fate of different animals. Until now, despite its great interest, Proclus' treatise has not received the attention it deserves, probably because its text is not very accessible to the modern reader. It has survived only in a Latin medieval translation and in some extensive Byzantine Greek extracts. This first English translation, based on a retro-conversion that works out what the original Greek must have been, brings the arguments he formulates again to the fore.

Proclus' On the Existence of Evils is not a commentary, but helps to compensate for the dearth of Neoplatonist ethical commentaries. The central question addressed in the work is: how can there be evil in a providential world? Neoplatonists agree that it cannot be caused by higher and worthier beings. Plotinus had said that evil is matter, which, unlike Aristotle, he collapsed into mere privation or lack, thus reducing its reality. He also protected higher causes from responsibility by saying that evil may result from a combination of goods. Proclus objects: evil is real, and not a privation. Rather, it is a parasite feeding off good. Parasites have no proper cause, and higher beings are thus vindicated as being the causes only of the good off which evil feeds.