Nausiphanes (; lived c. 325 BC), a native of Teos, was attached to the philosophy of Democritus.
He was a pupil of PyrrhoDiogenes Laertius, ix.Sextus Empiricus, adv.
Math.
i. 1. and a teacher to Epicurus, who was dissatisfied with him.Diogenes Laertius, x.Cicero, de Natura Deorum, i.
26, 33.
Biography
Nausiphanes had a large number of pupils, and was particularly famous as a rhetorician.
Epicurus was at one time one of his hearers, but was unsatisfied with him, and apparently abused him in his writings.Diogenes Laertius, x.
The Pyrrhonist philosopher, Sextus Empiricus said this about Nausiphanes:
Epicurus took the ground that the subjects taught are of no help in perfecting wisdom; and he did this, as some conjecture, because he saw in it a way of covering up his own lack of culture (for in many matters Epicurus stands convicted of ignorance, and even in ordinary converse his speech was not correct).
Another reason may have been his hostility towards Plato and Aristotle and their like who were men of wide learning.
It is not unlikely, too, that he was moved by his enmity against Nausiphanes, the disciple of Pyrrho, who kept his hold on many of the young men and devoted himself earnestly to the Arts and Sciences, especially Rhetoric.
Epicurus, then, though he had been one of this man’s disciples, did his best to deny the fact in order that he might, be thought to be a self-taught and original philosopher, and tried hard to blot out the reputation of Nausiphanes, and became a violent opponent of the Arts and Sciences wherein Nausiphanes prided himself.
Thus, in his "Letter to the Philosophers in Mytilene", Epicurus says, “I quite suppose that ‘the bellowers’ will fancy that I am even a disciple of ‘the Stockfish,’ having sat under him in the company of some crapulous striplings”; where he calls Nausiphanes a “Stockfish,” as being without sense.
And again, after proceeding further and abusing the man at length, he hints at his proficiency in Arts and Sciences when he says—“ In fact he was a sorry fellow and exercised himself on matters which cannot possibly lead to wisdom,” alluding thereby to Arts and Sciences.
Such, in fact,—as we may conjecture—were the sort of motives which decided Epicurus to make war on the Arts and Sciences.Sextus Empiricus, Against the Professors Book I, Section 1-5 Philosophy
Nausiphanes substituted the term akataplêxia (“undauntability”) for Democritus’ athambiê, “fearlessness,” as crucial for eudaimonia.David Konstan, "Epicurus", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy He also argued that the study of natural philosophy (physics) was the best foundation for studying rhetoric or politics.Sedley, David N. "Nausiphanes."
In Hornblower, Simon and Antony Spawforth, eds.
The Oxford Classical Dictionary.
New York: OUP, 2003.
p. 1029  There is a polemic in Philodemus' On Rhetoric against Nausiphanes' view that the natural philosopher is the best orator.Warren, J., Epicurus and Democritean Ethics: An Archaeology of Ataraxia.
Cambridge University Press.
(2002).
Epicurus may also have derived his three criteria of truth in his Canon from the Tripod of Nausiphanes.
Only the following summary of the Tripod survives, written by Philodemus.
The man of science has the capacity for rhetoric, even if he does not practise it.
The wise man will pursue rhetoric, because honour depends on winning a reputation for cleverness in politics, rather than on the over-lauded virtues.
The wise man is he who can persuade his hearers; this power belongs to the man of science, its source being his knowledge of the facts, so that he could pass on his own convictions not only to his pupils but to any race of people.
Having a knowledge of the facts, he is able to lead his audience where he wishes, because he can tell them what is to their advantage, which is what they wish to hear.
The scientist has command of the best diction also: not that created by vain imagination and usage, but that based on the nature of things.
He also has command of logic, without which knowledge is impossible, and is best qualified in that art indispensable to a statesman in a democracy or monarchy or any other constitution, of calculation of the future from the known facts.
The man who employs continuous discourse will be best able to employ the dialectic method and vice versa, because both depend on an accurate judgement of how to lead pupils from the known to the unknown; that is, they depend upon a knowledge of the 'right time' and 'right measure' in speaking.
Nausiphanes gave 'immovability' as the goal of life, this being the name he gave to Democritus’ 'imperturbability'.
Of those things which appear to exist, nothing exists more than it does not exist.
Notes
