Select works of Porphyry : $b Containing his four books on abstinence from animal food; his treatise on the Homeric cave of the nymphs; and his Auxiliaries to the perception of intelligible natures. With an appendix, explaining the allegory of the wandering of Ulysses — John Shaqi
Select works of Porphyry : $b Containing his four books on abstinence from animal food; his treatise on the Homeric cave of the nymphs; and his Auxiliaries to the perception of intelligible natures. With an appendix, explaining the allegory of the wandering of UlyssesPorphyry
Religion
Select works of Porphyry : $b Containing his four books on abstinence from animal food; his treatise on the Homeric cave of the nymphs; and his Auxiliaries to the perception of intelligible natures. With an appendix, explaining the allegory of the wandering of Ulysses
Porphyry
Mind and body -- Early works to 1800; Neoplatonism -- Early works to 1800; Odysseus, King of Ithaca (Mythological character); Soul -- Early works to 1800; Vegetarianism -- Early works to 1800
14. But he who forbids men to feed on animals, and thinks it is unjust,
will also say that it is not just to kill them, and deprive them of life.
Nevertheless, an innate and just war is implanted in us against brutes.
For some of them voluntarily attack men, as, for instance, wolves and
lions; others not voluntarily, as serpents, since they bite not, except
they are trampled on. And some, indeed, attack men; but others destroy
the fruits of the earth. From all these causes, therefore, we do not
spare the life of brutes; but we destroy those who commence hostilities
against us, as also those who do not, lest we should suffer any evil
from them. For there is no one who, if he sees a serpent, will not, if
he is able, destroy it, in order that neither it, nor any other serpent,
may bite a man. And this arises, not only from our hatred of those that
are the destroyers of our race, but likewise from that kindness which
subsists between one man and another. But though the war against brutes
is just, yet we abstain from many which associate with men. Hence, the
Greeks do not feed either on dogs, or horses, or asses, because of these,
those that are tame are of the same species as the wild. Nevertheless,
they eat swine and birds. For a hog is not useful for any thing but food.
The Phœnicians, however, and Jews, abstain from it, because, in short,
it is not produced in those places. For it is said, that this animal is
not seen in Ethiopia even at present. As, therefore, no Greek sacrifices
a camel or an elephant to the Gods, because Greece does not produce
these animals, so neither is a hog sacrificed to the Gods in Cyprus or
Phœnicia, because it is not indigenous in those places. And, for the
same reason, neither do the Egyptians sacrifice this animal to the Gods.
In short, that some nations abstain from a hog, is similar to our being
unwilling to eat the flesh of camels.
15. But why should any one abstain from animals? Is it because feeding
on them makes the soul or the body worse? It is, however, evident, that
neither of these is deteriorated by it. For those animals that feed on
flesh are more sagacious than others, as they are venatic, and possess
an art by which they supply themselves with food, and acquire power and
strength; as is evident in lions and wolves. So that the eating of flesh
neither injures the soul nor the body. This likewise is manifest, both
from the athlete, whose bodies become stronger by feeding on flesh, and
from physicians, who restore bodies to health by the use of animal food.
For this is no small indication that Pythagoras did not think sanely,
that none of the wise men embraced his opinion; since neither any one of
the seven wise men, nor any of the physiologists who lived after them,
nor even the most wise Socrates, or his followers, adopted it.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account