Chreos and Philotês in Homeric Ethics: Beyond Enlightenment and Reverence

This article offers a philosophical reinterpretation of Homeric ethics by bringing into debate the opposing views of Peter J. Ahrensdorf, Richard Ruderman, and Darrell Dobbs. Ahrensdorf and Ruderman highlight the whimsical, capricious, selfish, and morally indifferent behavior of the Homeric gods. Given these divine flaws, humans lack perfect safeguards against calamities caused by fate (Moîra) and necessity or by their flawed judgments. For both authors, rational judgment serves as the most reliable antidote to suffering and destruction. Ruderman, in particular, interprets Homer as a defender of “enlightenment,” grounded in the rejection of false hopes on divine providence, which in the Homeric context is considered unreliable and untrustworthy. Blind faith in gods, he argued, indulges thymos, the most self-assertive innermost human longing that incites rampant anger, often culminating in hubris (extreme moral transgression). In contrast, Dobbs focuses on Homer’s Odyssey and defends a vision of reverence as morally stabilising. For him, rational action cannot guarantee morality and justice. More importantly, the instrumentality of rationalism can lead to recklessness and hubris. Reverence for divine powers, on the other hand, encourages moral resilience, even in the face of suffering imposed by the gods themselves or Moîra. This article evaluates both positions and argues that neither rational autonomy nor reverence alone suffices to secure justice and well-being. It another another aspect of Ahrensdorf’s interpretation of the Iliad: the virtue of friendship (or philotês), which (in the author’s view) is best exemplified by the character of Achilles. Drawing on Plato, Aristotle, and Empedocles, I explain that since philotês is grounded in a sense of chreos (moral necessity), it lays the foundations for a stable community of solidarity anchored in mutual recognition and respect. Thus, chreos and philotês emerge as the twin foundations of Homeric ethics.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Conatus
Published
2025-12-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.12681/cjp.41304
Primary Topic
Classical Philosophy and Thought
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Chreos and Philotês in Homeric Ethics: Beyond Enlightenment and Reverence

Michail Theodosiadis
Conatus
Classical Philosophy and Thought
article

Chreos and Philotês in Homeric Ethics: Beyond Enlightenment and Reverence

Michail Theodosiadis
article en

Abstract

This article offers a philosophical reinterpretation of Homeric ethics by bringing into debate the opposing views of Peter J. Ahrensdorf, Richard Ruderman, and Darrell Dobbs. Ahrensdorf and Ruderman highlight the whimsical, capricious, selfish, and morally indifferent behavior of the Homeric gods. Given these divine flaws, humans lack perfect safeguards against calamities caused by fate (Moîra) and necessity or by their flawed judgments. For both authors, rational judgment serves as the most reliable antidote to suffering and destruction. Ruderman, in particular, interprets Homer as a defender of “enlightenment,” grounded in the rejection of false hopes on divine providence, which in the Homeric context is considered unreliable and untrustworthy. Blind faith in gods, he argued, indulges thymos, the most self-assertive innermost human longing that incites rampant anger, often culminating in hubris (extreme moral transgression). In contrast, Dobbs focuses on Homer’s Odyssey and defends a vision of reverence as morally stabilising. For him, rational action cannot guarantee morality and justice. More importantly, the instrumentality of rationalism can lead to recklessness and hubris. Reverence for divine powers, on the other hand, encourages moral resilience, even in the face of suffering imposed by the gods themselves or Moîra. This article evaluates both positions and argues that neither rational autonomy nor reverence alone suffices to secure justice and well-being. It another another aspect of Ahrensdorf’s interpretation of the Iliad: the virtue of friendship (or philotês), which (in the author’s view) is best exemplified by the character of Achilles. Drawing on Plato, Aristotle, and Empedocles, I explain that since philotês is grounded in a sense of chreos (moral necessity), it lays the foundations for a stable community of solidarity anchored in mutual recognition and respect. Thus, chreos and philotês emerge as the twin foundations of Homeric ethics.

ConatusVol. 10(2)
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Classical Philosophy and Thought
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Chreos and Philotês in Homeric Ethics: Beyond Enlightenment and Reverence — Michail Theodosiadis · Conatus (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS