Prol epsis according to Epicurus and the Stoa English summary of master thesis

Claartje van Sijl November 2003

In my master-thesis I investigate the similarities and dierences between the epicurean and the stoic concepts of prol epsis so as to achieve a better understanding and to suggest an explanation for them. As Cicero tells us (ND I.44), Epicurus invented the term and introduced it in philosophical discourse. Since there is no reason to doubt Ciceros evidence on the point, we can conclude that the Stoics took it over from Epicurus. Leaving aside the fact that the concept had to be embedded in a very dierent philosophical system, it is hardly plausible that the Stoics would have taken over such a concept as prol epsis lock, stock and barrel,1 given the well-known rivalry between the epicureans and Stoics. In current research, often only one of the schools is discussed, attending to the relation with the other as a side-issue.2 Also, the temptation to refer to epicurean material in order to clarify the stoic theory on prol epsis is quite strong, due to the scarcity of sources. Though this practice cannot be rejected a priori as erroneous, because of the close similarities between the two schools, it should at least be avoided until the complete identity of the two schools conception of prol epsis has been established. As I have tried to show, it is doubtful that this would be possible, because of the lack of extensive evidence and sources. Moreover, several dierences are attended to, which show the falsity of the identity hypothesis.
Schoeld (1980, p. 293). E.g. Sandbach (1971), Long (1971a), Todd (1973), Sedley (1973), Schoeld (1980), Glidden (1983) and Asmis (1984). Manuwald (1972) and Goldschmidt (1978) are examples of studies that try to attend more systematically to the relation between the two schools.
2 1

2 After a short general introduction in Hellenistic epistemology and a discussion of the source-problem in general I concentrate on the following main aspects of the theory of prol epseis. Origin and formation of prol epseis It is argued that according to both schools prol epseis cannot be innate. Since in the main evidence concerning epicurean theory on the formation of prol epseis (DL X.32-33) a lot of non-epicurean, and sometimes even stoic terminology is used, it becomes so suspicious, that we cannot safely conclude anything regarding this point, except that epicurean prol epseis must arise naturally out of the fantasiai. With respect to stoic prol epseis more discussion is possible as to their innateness, though I have argued that they are not innate. Compared to the epicurean account of the formation of prol epseis, we can say more about the stoic theory of how prol epseis come into being. This also occurs fysik os from our perceptions, but only from the special fantasiai katal eptikai. It is argued that the Stoics expanded the epicurean theory in pointing out not only the fact that this is possible through mn em e and empeiria (Aet. Plac. IV.11), but also the structuring mechanisms facilitating the formation of specic concepts (like analogy, composition, etc. as pointed out in DL VII.52-53). Ontological status and semantical function of prol epseis Of course, stoic lekta facilitate the linguistic expression of our thoughts and hence also of our prol epseis, which are physical modications of the mind and cannot be passed on as such to other persons. Since lekta can be grasped by others, they could be thought of as corresponding to the modern concept of propositional content. According to the epicureans, too, prol epseis exist only as modications of our mind, but they fervently rejected the stoic concept of lekta. Because of the absence of lekta, the content of a prol epsis has sometimes to be interpreted as an image (as far as we can see it), sometimes as the propositional content (as far as it is true). In this chapter, Epicurus Ep.Hdt. 37-38 and the interpretation of Glidden (1983) are discussed extensively. It is argued that we cannot fully understand this passage if we interpret it as relating only to Epicurus theory of language, as Glidden does: attention to Epicurus epistemological concerns about the starting points of knowledge is necessary. Also with respect to this aspect of the theory of prol epseis one could say the Stoics systematized the epicurean doctrine, as they dierentiated between the meaning of our words and the content of our prol epseis. However, it remains to be seen whether their problematic ontological status of lekton really solved anything. As to their ideas on the origin of language and its relation to true reality: these can best be seen as equivalent theories, rather than as reactions on or elaborations of the opponents view. Whereas the epicureans saw a

3 chronological succession of natural and conventional meanings, the Stoics distinguished rather between the contemporary existing supercial conventions and the underlying, natural structure of language. Prol epsis as criterion of truth No doubt, Epicurus also introduced the concept of the krit erion t es al etheias, which was taken over by the Stoics. After a general discussion of this concept, the debate about the question whether the criterion of truth is to be seen as a capacity3 or instrument4 is considered, concluding that this is irrelevant for the function it is supposed to fulll. Also it is argued that the specic criterion of prol epsis functions for other ad ela than e.g. the criterion of aisth eseis and hence cannot be reduced to the perceptions out of which it has been formed. Since the Stoics were more concerned about the problems with the fantasia katal eptik e, we have hardly any sources on their conception of prol epsis as krit erion t es al etheias. Thus, it is impossible to compare both schools in this respect. Prol epsis in the debates between K epos and Stoa Given that both schools theories do not seem dier fundamentally with respect to the main functions of prol epseis, it is astonishing to see their enormous conicts about the content of specic prol epseis. As an example, the debate on the nature of the gods as depicted by Cicero is considered. Both epicureans and Stoics rely on vague common-sense intuitions of philosophically uneducated people, inarticulate prol epseis of the gods to justify their own philosophical theologies. At the same time, however, these philosophical theological considerations serve to lter out mistaken additions of tradition that have polluted the original prol epsis of the philosophically uneducated people. This raises the question whom they refer to when both schools are talking of our prol epsis : we, members of this philosophical school, or we, common Greeks. Evidently, each of the schools elects those elements of the traditional theology that t in best with the rest of their philosophy, respectively Olympic and cosmic gods.

In general I concluded that the formal similarities between the two theories of prol epsis are close enough to explain why some current literature often does not distinguish systematically between them, but certainly not close enough to simply identify them. What dierences have been pointed out generally go further than consequences of the embedding in dierent philosophies: generally the Stoics can be seen as taking over the epicurean theory, while expanding, systematizing, and rening it.
3 4

As has been argued a.o. by Striker (1996b), Striker (1996a) and Long and Sedley (1987). As has been argued a.o. by Asmis (1984).

4 English Table of Contents 1. Introduction a) General introduction and statement of the main problem b) Introduction to Hellenistic epistemology c) The general character of prol epsis d) Problem of the sources 2. Origin and formation a) Are prol epseis innate? b) Formation of prol epseis according to the K epos i. Sources ii. Diogenes Laertius on epicurean prol epseis c) Formation of prol epseis according to the Stoa i. Sources ii. Renement and explanation of fysik os d) Comparision 3. Ontological status and semantical function a) K epos i. Epicurus letter to Herodotus, paragraph 37-38 ii. Semantics and prol epsis iii. Content and ontological status of prol epsis b) Stoa i. Content and ontological status of prol epsis ; relation to lekta ii. Semantics and prol epsis c) Comparison 4. Prol epsis as criterion of truth a) General i. Function of a krit erion ii. Krit erion : capacity or instrument? b) K epos: prol epsis as krit erion i. An independent, irreducible krit erion ? c) Stoa: prol epsis as krit erion d) Comparison

5 5. prol epsis in the debates between K epos and Stoa a) A concrete example: De Natura Deorum b) K epos c) Stoa d) Comparison and results of this debate 6. Conclusion 7. Bibliography 8. English summary 9. English table of contents

References
Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., and Schoeld, M., editors (1999). The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Annas, J. (1992). Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Arrighetti, G. (1960). Epicuro Opere. Einaudi, Torino. Arthur, E. (1983). Stoic analysis of the minds reactions to presentations. Hermes, 111:6978. Asmis, E. (1984). Epicurus Scientic Method. Cornell University Press, London. Asmis, E. (1999). Epicurean epistemology. In Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., and Schoeld, M., editors, The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, pages 260294. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bailey, C. (1928). The Greek Atomists and Epicurus. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Barnes, J. (1980). Misconstruction of the epistemological character of proof. In Schoeld, M., Burnyeat, M., and Barnes, J., editors, Doubt and Dogmatism. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Barnes, J., Brunschwig, J., Burnyeat, M., and Schoeld, M., editors (1982). Science and Speculation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Boys-Stones, G. R. (2001). Post-Hellenistic Philosophy: a Study of its Developments from the Stoics to Origen. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Brunschwig, J., editor (1978). Les Sto ciens et leur Logique. Vrin, Paris. Brunschwig, J., editor (1994a). Papers in Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. translation: J. Lloyd. Brunschwig, J. (1994b). The stoic theory of the supreme genus and platonic ontology. In Brunschwig, J., editor, Papers in Hellenistic Philosophy, pages 92157. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. translation: J. Lloyd. Bury, R., editor (1933). Sextus Empiricus: Outlines of Pyrrhonism. Loeb Classical Library, part I. Heinemann, London. Cherniss, H., editor (1976). Plutarchus: Moralia. Loeb Classical Library, part XIII.2. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts. DeWitt, N. (1954). Epicurus and his Philosophy. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Dorandi, T. (1999). Synopsis of the principal events and schools. In Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., and Schoeld, M., editors, The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, pages 798804. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 6

Einarson, B. and De Lacy, P., editors (1967). Plutarchus: Moralia. Loeb Classical Library, part XIV. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts. en E. de Lacy, P. (1978). Philodemus On Methods of Inference. Bibliopolis, Napoli. Frede, M. (1978). Principles of stoic grammar. In Rist, J. M., editor, The Stoics, pages 2775. University of California Press, Berkely, Los Angeles, London. Frede, M. (1999). Stoic epistemology. In Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., and Schoeld, M., editors, The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, pages 295322. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gersh, S. (1986). Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism: the Latin Tradition, volume 1. University of Notre Dame Press. Gigante, M., editor (1983). . Macchiaroli.

Gigante, M. (1995). Philodemus in Italy. University of Michigan Press, University of Michigan. translation: D. Obbink. Glidden, D. (1983). Epicurean semantics. In Gigante, M., editor, pages 185226. Macchiaroli. ,

Glidden, D. (1985). Epicurean Prol epsis. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 3:175217. Goldschmidt, V. (1978). Remarques sur lorigine epicurienne de la pr enotion. In Brunschwig, J., editor, Les Sto ciens et leur Logique, pages 155169. Vrin, Paris. Goldschmidt, V. (1982). La th eorie epicurienne du droit. In Barnes, J., Brunschwig, J., Burnyeat, M., and Schoeld, M., editors, Science and Speculation, pages 304326. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gould, J. (1971). The Philosophy of Chrysippus. Brill, Leiden. Graeser, A. (1978). The stoic theory of meaning. In Rist, J. M., editor, The Stoics, pages 77100. Universityof California Press, Berkely, Los Angeles, London. Grith, M. and Mastronarde, D., editors (1990). Cabinet of the Muses. Essays on Classical and Comparative Literature in Honor of Thomas G. Rosenmeyer. Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia. Hicks, R., editor (1925, 1970). Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Loeb Classical Library, part 1 and 2. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts. Irwin, T. (1986). Stoic and aristotelian conceptions of happiness. In Schoeld, M. and Striker, G., editors, The Norms of Nature, pages 205245. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Irwin, T., editor (1995). Hellenistic Philosophy. Garland Publishing, New York, London. 7

Kleve, K. (1963). Gnosis Theon, Die Lehre von der nat urlichen Gotteserkenntnis in der epikureischen Theologie. Number fasc. supplet. XIX in Symbolae Osloenses. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. Kneale, W. e. M. (1962). The Development of Logic. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Lamberton, R. and Keany, J., editors (1992). Homers Ancient Readers: the Hermeneutics of Greek Epics Earliest Exegetes. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Lloyd, A. (1971). Grammar and metaphysics in the stoa. In Long, A., editor, Problems in Stoicism, pages 5874. Athlone Press, London. Long, A. (1971a). Aisthesis, prolepsis and linguistic theory in epicurus. Bulletin of the Institute for Classical Studies, 18:114132. Long, A. (1971b). Language and thought in stoicism. In Long, A., editor, Problems in Stoicism, pages 75113. Athlone Press, London. Long, A., editor (1971c). Problems in Stoicism. Athlone Press, London. Long, A. (1988). Answer to barnes. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, suppl. vol.:135144. Long, A. (1990). Scepticism about the gods in hellenistic philosophy. In Grith, M. and Mastronarde, D., editors, Cabinet of the Muses. Essays on Classical and Comparative Literature in Honor of Thomas G. Rosenmeyer, pages 279 291. Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia. Long, A. (1992). Stoic readings of homer. In Lamberton, R. and Keany, J., editors, Homers Ancient Readers: the Hermeneutics of Greek Epics Earliest Exegetes, pages 4166. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Long, A. and Sedley, D. (1987). The Hellenistic Philosophers, volume 1 & 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Mansfeld, J. (1999). Theology. In Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., and Schoeld, M., editors, The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, pages 452479. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Manuwald, A. (1972). Die Prolepsislehre Epikurs. Habelt, Bonn. Melville, R., editor (1997). Lucretius: On the Nature of the Universe. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Merbach, F. (1909). De Epicuri Canonica. Weidae Thuringorum, Leipzig. Obbink, D. (2002). All gods are true in epicurus. In Frede, D. and Laks, A., editors, Traditions of Theology. Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath, pages 183221. Leiden. Oldfather, W., editor (1925, 1961). Epicutetus: Arrians Discourses. Loeb Classical Library, part 1 & 2. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts. Philodemus (1978). On Methods of Inference. Bibliopolis, Napoli.

Pohlenz, M. (1948). Die Stoa. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, G ottingen. Rackham, H., editor (1933, 2000). Cicero: On the Nature of the Gods. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts. Rist, J. (1969). Stoic Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rist, J. (1971). Categories and their uses. In Long, A., editor, Problems in Stoicism, pages 3857. Athlone Press, London. Rist, J. (1972). Epicurus: an Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rist, J. (1978). The Stoics. University of California Press, Berkely, Los Angeles, London. Sandbach, F. (1971a). . In Long, A., editor, Problems in Stoicism, pages 921. Athlone Press, London. Sandbach, F. (1971b). and . In Long, A., editor, Problems in Stoicism, pages 2238. Athlone Press, London. Sandbach, F. (1985). Aristotle and the stoics. Cambridge Philological Society, suppl. vol. nr. 10:iv88. Schoeld, M. (1980). Preconception, argument and god. In Schoeld, M., Burnyeat, M., and Barnes, J., editors, Doubt and Dogmatism: Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology, pages 283308. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Schoeld, M., Burnyeat, M., and Barnes, J., editors (1980). Doubt and Dogmatism. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Schoeld, M. and Striker, G., editors (1986). The Norms of Nature. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Scott, D. (1995). Innnatism and the stoa. In Irwin, T., editor, Hellenistic Philosophy, pages 93124. Garland Publishing, New York, London. Sedley, D. (1973). Epicurus, on nature book xxviii. Cronache Ercolanesi, 3:583. Sedley, D. (1982). On signs. In Barnes, J., Brunschwig, J., Burnyeat, M., and Schoeld, M., editors, Science and Speculation, pages 239273. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Striker, G. (1974). Wissenschaften G ottingen, 2:50110. . Nachrichten der Akademie der

Striker, G. (1996). Essays on Hellenistic Epistemology and Ethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Todd, R. (1973). The stoic common notions. Symbolae Osloenses, 48:4775. Usener, H. (1977). Glossarium Epicureum. Edizioni dellAteneo & Bizzarri, Roma. Virieux-Reymond, A. (ca. 1950). La Logique et lEpist emologie des Sto ciens. Chamb ery. 9